Report for - Home | GOV.WALES

Report for Welsh Government Fisheries Division

Review of Marine requirements for Fisheries Policing and Enforcement

Issue rev 01

14-07-14

pg/ds/is

WGF- report rev 01 issued 14-07-14.docx printed 14/07/14

PART 1

SECTION 1) INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 4

SECTION 2) SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 5

SECTION 3) METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 6

SECTION 4) DEFINITION OF ENFORCEMENT TASKS & REVIEW OF REQUIREMENT ............................... 6

SECTION 5) DEFINITION OF ENFORCEMENT TASKS .............................................................................. 7

SECTION 6) REVIEW OF REQUIREMENT ............................................................................................... 8

SECTION 7) REVIEW OF EXISTING ASSETS ............................................................................................ 9

SECTION 8) POLICING THE CELTIC DEEP ............................................................................................. 10

SECTION 9) WHAT MIGHT MEET THE REQUIREMENT? ...................................................................... 12

SECTION 10) DAYS AT SEA ................................................................................................................... 14

SECTION 11) VESSEL DISTRIBUTION OPTIONS ..................................................................................... 15

SOLUTION USING ONE PRINCIPAL VESSEL ........................................................................................ 15

SOLUTION USING TWO PRINCIPAL VESSELS ...................................................................................... 16

SOLUTION USING TWO PRINCIPAL VESSELS WITH A SUPPORT CRIB (2.5 VESSELS) ................................... 16 SOLUTION USING THREE PRINCIPAL VESSELS .................................................................................... 16

SECONDARY VESSELS TO SUPPORT THE SOLUTIONS ........................................................................... 17

SECTION 12) CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................................. 17

SECTION 13) REJECTED OPTIONS ......................................................................................................... 18

PART 2

SECTION 14) REFINED OPTIONS: VESSEL DETAIL .................................................................................. 18

THE 2 VESSEL SOLUTION: FURTHER CONSIDERATION. ........................................................................ 18

THE 2.5 VESSEL SOLUTION: FURTHER CONSIDERATION. ..................................................................... 20

THE 3 VESSEL SOLUTION: FURTHER CONSIDERATION. ........................................................................ 21

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 23

SECTION 15) RECOMMENDATION: PHASED 2 VESSEL SOLUTION ........................................................ 24

SECTION 16) PROCUREMENT OPTIONS ............................................................................................... 27

SECTION 17) COSTING ......................................................................................................................... 28

VESSEL COSTS; .......................................................................................................................... 28 PROJECT COSTS ......................................................................................................................... 28

BASE RUNNING COSTS ................................................................................................................ 30

FINANCIAL LEASING COSTS .......................................................................................................... 31

SECTION 18) OPERATION OF ASSETS BY OTHER PROVIDERS; .............................................................. 32

SECTION 19) SUMMARY OF OVERALL PROJECT COSTS ........................................................................ 39

SECTION 20) OTHER PROVIDERS FOR ANCILLARY TASKS ..................................................................... 42

SECTION 21) RELATIONSHIP TO NRW .................................................................................................. 43

SECTION 22) TYPICAL PROCUREMENT TIMESCALES ............................................................................. 44

SECTION 23) APPENDIX A: CAPABILITY INDEX ..................................................................................... 47

SECTION 24) APPENDIX B: MANNING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................... 50


SECTION 25) APPENDIX C: DAYS AT SEA DATA .................................................................................... 52

HISTORICAL USAGE DATA: ........................................................................................................... 52

DATA ON VESSEL FUEL USAGE ....................................................................................................... 53

OTHER DATA ............................................................................................................................ 54

DEVELOPMENT OF DAYS AT SEA REQUIREMENT GOING FORWARD ........................................................ 55

INVESTIGATION BY OPERATIONAL HOURS ........................................................................................ 58

SECTION 26) APPENDIX D: HOURS OF WORK ...................................................................................... 59

SECTION 27) APPENDIX E. PORTS AROUND THE WELSH COAST. .......................................................... 60

SECTION 28) APPENDIX F: SCIENTIFIC REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ 64

TASK SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 64

TIME SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 66

SECTION 29) APPENDIX G: RIB BOARDING .......................................................................................... 67

CONCLUSION: ........................................................................................................................... 67

DETAILS; .................................................................................................................................. 67 RIB BOARDING PRACTICAL EXPERIENCES ......................................................................................... 67

SECTION 30) APPENDIX H: UK FPS AND SCOTTISH FPS INFORMATION ................................................ 69

SECTION 31) APPENDIX J: VESSEL ACTIVITY LIST .................................................................................. 70

SECTION 32) APPENDIX L: CURRENT ASSET REPORTS .......................................................................... 72

AEGIS ...................................................................................................................................... 72

CRANOGWEN ........................................................................................................................... 74

SECTION 33) APPENDIX M: PROJECT COST DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 76

VESSEL COSTS ........................................................................................................................... 76

PROJECT COSTS ......................................................................................................................... 76

BASE RUNNING COSTS ................................................................................................................ 78

SECTION 35) APPENDIX N: SCIENTIFIC VESSEL COSTS .......................................................................... 80

PRINCE MADOG ........................................................................................................................ 80

BRIGGS/EA (UK) ...................................................................................................................... 81 SWANSEA UNIVERSITY VESSEL RV NOCTILUCA ................................................................................. 83

SECTION 36) APPENDIX P: WGF AND NRW FLOATING STOCK SUMMARY ............................................ 85

SECTION 37) APPENDIX Q: BEAUFORT AND SEA STATE CODES ............................................................ 88

SECTION 38) APPENDIX R: INFORMATION THAT IS SENSITIVE IN THE EVENT OF AN FOI APPLICATION 89


PART 1

Section 1) Introduction

This report has been written for the Welsh Government Fisheries (WGF) division, to examine the requirements for fisheries policing and enforcement around the Welsh coast.

The stated aim of the tasking specification for the project is:

examine relevant information relating to the sea conditions, patrol areas, types of enforcement, monitoring and research considerations in the sea area for which Welsh Ministers have responsibility, and to bring forward long term delivery solutions for Wales

WGF have inherited assets with predefined capabilities. None of the current assets would have been chosen for the task that now faces WGF; they are simply what exists and what has to be used until new assets can be procured.

To avoid any misunderstanding throughout the reading of this report, Amgram do not propose that any of the current principal assets should be used in the long term future, for the reasons detailed at section 7. Current assets may however provide a temporary solution or part of an interim solution.

Aspects of this report contain commercially sensitive information which should not be released should an application be made under the Freedom of Information Act. These aspects are contained in Appendix R.


Section 2) Summary and conclusions

The work for this report has reviewed the current assets, discussed the scope and type of tasks with WGF officers, considered the type, number and approximate costing for the WGF fishery enforcement service. The current assets are not considered suitable in the long term. For WGF to operate an effective enforcement service, independent of RN support, new assets are necessary.

It is recommended that a 2 vessel solution is adopted for enforcement and that a phased procurement is carried out. The phased approach will allow the new form of fisheries enforcement service to develop and will allow negotiation and discussion with other government agencies, outside interests and third-party providers.

It is recommended that the first vessel procurement programme should start as soon as is reasonably practical, given that the procurement process itself will take approximately 7 months and vessel procurement approximately 26 months total from the start of any action.

A second vessel should be procured, within a five-year approximate timescale and with the specification and size driven by a more accurate data plan than can be assembled at the moment. At the time of procurement, some work should be put into the feasibility of it being a catamaran type.

Given that Welsh government is generally receptive to procurement of assets through lease methods, it is recommended that these new WGF assets should be procured on a crewed charter basis from a third party service provider. It is considered that WGF will benefit from relinquishing the responsibilities of running and operating the vessel/s and allowing fisheries officers to concentrate on the business of enforcement.

It is recommended that the vessel time for the important scientific ancillary tasks, which need to be carried out for statutory and legislative reasons, should be contracted out to third party providers. This should apply certainly for the next 5 years and perhaps longer depending on the demand on the second vessel and its final specification.

The overall cost of the phased 2 vessel solution, supplied by a crewed charter provider, would be in the region of 1.7m per annum. The additional cost of the subcontracted vessel time for ancillary work would be in the region of 180,000 per annum.

It is recommended that WGF fisheries officers should work as closely as possible with NRW officers to maximise the use of assets. It is also recommended that there would be merit in further talks with

Swansea University as they are also considering the procurement of new assets.

It is recommended that a closer review of small secondary vessels should be carried out involving WGF, NRW, EA(UK) and possibly others, with the objective of rationalising and harmonising the fleet and perhaps putting maintenance into the hands of a third party provider.


Section 3) Methodology

Amgram originally set out to match the requirements, the required capability, the current capability and the options. This has not been possible to achieve as one single process.

A first step was to define the tasks and generate the overall requirement, including those for the future.

That has led to a short review of the capability of the current assets and then further to identify broad solutions for vessel distribution options.

Amgram strongly believe that the broad technical solutions for Enforcement tasks and the distribution of vessels should be viewed in isolation from exactly how those services are provided. This is in order to avoid confusing the technical problem of Enforcement with the commercial constraints.

In discussion with WGF these broad distribution options have been shortlisted and then, in part 2, the shortlisted options have been further refined for more details of appraisal of procurement options and costing implications.

Section 4) Definition of Enforcement tasks & review of

requirement

The activities of the Enforcement process have been considered and the individual tasks defined. The summation of the tasks provides the overall requirement and that leads to the consideration of the vessel options which might meet that requirement.

When setting out to define the tasks, Amgram engaged with vessel masters, scientists, fishery protection officers and operation controllers. This process sought to define each task and also to define the number of days required for that particular task. Discussion of the tasks had to be carefully controlled as there was a temptation to consider everything in great detail.

In order to assess options a simple capability index has been developed as a basic method of defining and justifying the capability of a vessel to perform a task.

The principles behind the capability index are highlighted at Appendix A.

As a result of the investigation work, the tasks have been separated into:

Enforcement tasks those required to fulfil the statutory requirement for Enforcement duties- the primary role- Fisheries Policing and Enforcement.

Ancillary tasks those tasks which may be carried out by any suitable vessel. Ancillary tasks such as fisheries research, monitoring and scientific data collection may be statutory requirements in a scientific and legal sense but are not statutory for enforcement.


Section 5) Definition of Enforcement tasks

The Enforcement tasks were reduced down to the simplest level possible and were assessed as:

Table 1

Enforcement

tasks

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Task element

Patrol to limits (over 12 nm off and up to 60 nm) to provide presence and deterrent

Action of inspection (over 12 nm off and up to 60 nm) using boarding by RIB

Carried out by;

Not currently done by WGF(or rarely) - done by RN and plane Not currently done by WGF(or rarely) - done by RN and plane

Coastal patrol (6-12 nm) to provide presence and deterrent WGF and RN overlap currently

Action of inspection (6-12 nm) using boarding by RIB WGF and RN overlap currently

Inshore patrol (0-6 nm) to provide presence and deterrent WGF

Action of inspection (0-6 nm) using boarding by RIB WGF

Pot lifting for compliance checking and if necessary seizing WGF Drift net recovery

All other tasks are considered to be ancillary.

WGF


Section 6) Review of requirement

If each of the Enforcement tasks is examined using the capability index, the capability of a particular vessel to perform those tasks can be identified. Table 2 illustrates the capability index requirements for each of the defined Enforcement tasks:

The capability index approach shows that the task of inspection (over 12 nautical miles off and up to 60 nautical miles) using boarding by RIB requires the highest capability.

All of the other tasks require a lower capability index, most of them significantly lower, albeit that some tasks require specialist equipment.

Table 2- Capability requirement

Task no

Task element Speed Seakeeping Overall

Seakeeping Operational

Habit- ability

RIB and launching system

Pot hauler system and

suitable layout

1 Patrol to limits (over 12 nm off and up to 60 nm) to provide presence and deterrent

2 Action of inspection (over 12 nm off and up to 60 nm) using boarding by RIB

3 Coastal patrol (6-12 nm) to provide presence and deterrent

4 Action of inspection (6-12 nm) using boarding by RIB

5 Inshore patrol (0-6 nm) to provide presence and deterrent

6 Action of inspection (0-6 nm) using boarding by RIB

7 Pot lifting for compliance checking and if necessary seizing

8 Drift net recovery

25 5 5 5 1 1 5 625

Speed index

Capability Index

required

25

20

25

15

25

10

10

5 5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

4

3

3

2

2

3

3

5

1

5

1

5

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

5

4

5

3

5

2

2

2500

300

1875

150

1250

750

750


Section 7) Review of existing assets

During the course of this work, Amgram Ltd has made visits to both the Cranogwen and the Aegis in their home ports. A short summary report of those meetings is attached as Appendix L.

The capability index approach has also been used to review the suitability of the craft that are currently in service:

Table 3

Enforcement

tasks

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Task element


Action of inspection (over 12 nm off and up to 60 nm) using boarding by RIB Coastal patrol (6-12 nm) to provide presence and deterrent

Action of inspection (6-12 nm) using boarding by RIB Inshore patrol (0-6 nm) to provide presence and deterrent Action of inspection (0-6 nm) using boarding by RIB Pot lifting for compliance checking and if necessary seizing

Drift net recovery Overall index

Capability Index

required 625

2500

300

1875

150

1250

750

750

15625

Cranogwen Aegis

128

360

128

360

128

360

192

288

864

211

1200

211

1200

211

1200

32

480

1056

6m rib

80

400

80

400

80

400

32

32

240

Appraisal using the capability index broadly shows that the current assets are significantly below the level required, with the exception of inshore patrol and boarding (in the case of the Aegis).

The appraisal by this index fits fairly well with the subjective view of the current assets, as reported in Appendix L; the Cranogwen is slow, equipped with a very limited davit which significantly restricts RIB launching and a poorly positioned pot hauler. By contrast the Aegis is somewhat range limited, capable of only moderate speed, too small for significant offshore work and currently without any pot hauling facility.

In addition the Cranogwen is old and there are potentially issues about mechanical or structural failure.

It is for these reasons that Amgram do not recommend that the current assets are retained as long- term solutions.


Section 8) Policing the Celtic deep

Policing the Celtic deep will be a completely new task for the WGF. The task has previously been carried out by the Royal Navy Fisheries Protection Squadron (FPS) and by air flight. Both of these services are to be regarded as being withdrawn.

This Wikipedia information highlights the type of level at which the FPS operate around the UK (except Scotland):

The Royal Navy operate three of the River class vessels: HMS Mersey, Tyne and Severn to carry out the service. The ships are chartered by the Royal Navy from private ship-owners. Each ship has a crew of around 45 personnel and these are substantial 80m craft, each of approximately 1700 tonnes and capable of a maximum speed of 20 knots- see details in Appendix H.

This type of FPS vessel is not considered a realistic solution to the task for WGF. Such an asset would represent an enormous capital investment together with a vast amount of manpower and for a substantial amount of time such a huge asset would be underutilised.

So the approach proposed for policing the Celtic deep by the WGF, is to use a fast patrol vessel; length in the 20 to 25 m region and capable of speeds between 20 to 25 knots.

The projected activity in the Celtic deep is an all year round fishery, likewise in the Welsh zone south and the North Celtic deep- see Appendix J for full details of vessel activity.

Being a year round activity, clearly there will be periods of very severe weather in these areas. The patrol and enforcement work would need to take account of weather conditions by planning, both in respect of the capability of the principal craft on station but also with respect to RIB boarding possibilities

The inspection aspect of any enforcement work is ultimately constrained by a single problem: that of boarding the target vessel is by RIB and the weather limitations for when that is it possible-see details in Appendix G- RIB boarding. However this constraint occurs whether the vessel is the River class 80m vessel capable of operating in very adverse weather, or a 25 m craft which might appear to be more weather limited.

The principle proposed here for WGF is to use speed to be able to respond when weather is reasonable and to acknowledge and understand that response will not be possible when weather conditions are very severe.

It must also be understood that such a vessel would not be able to spend time on station in the same way as an FPS vessel. This is expected and this consideration has been allowed for in the task timings. However, it should not be forgotten that a 25m vessel with a reasonable speed capacity would be able to respond more rapidly than the FPS type vessel and would be able to seek refuge rapidly in bad weather.


Policing the Celtic deep is an important aspect but is only one of the tasks WGF need to carry out. So inevitably, perhaps, the vessel that is selected to do this has to be a compromise in order that it can match the requirements of the other tasks and duties required of it.

For these reasons it is proposed that the WGF policing of the Celtic deep is carried out by a smaller, faster vessel rather than the traditional FPS displacement craft.


Section 9) What might meet the requirement?

Having determined that current assets have no long term role to play in the future plan and considered the new task of policing to the limits in of the Welsh Zone, the next step in the process is to assess what type of vessel might fulfil the task.

At this stage the consideration has not been constrained by exactly how the assets are provided in terms of cost, manning or berthing and at this stage the consideration has been limited to the Enforcement tasks. Solutions may be assets that are either wholly owned by the WGF or assets which are contracted in.

Although fisheries patrol vessels have been exempt, any workboat operating around the shores of the UK needs to comply with the UK MCA Workboat code MGN 280, or the upcoming new MCA brown book code, both referred to generically as the MCA code.

The MCA Code covers construction standards as well as manning, safety and working hours. As a build standard, it is recommended that any WGF vessel should comply as a minimum with the code. Further classification (such as LRS or DnV) can be considered but is not mandatory.

Although there are all sorts of shapes and sizes in between, this section considers vessels in four broad sizes which are substantially COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf) craft;

25 m FPV: Of the type in service with DARDNI (largest vessel possible within MGN280 code) - although it could also be a multihull- subject to notes in part 2 section 14

18 m CAT: Multihull derived from 18 m type in service as windfarm support vessels- (Note; it has been assumed at this stage that a fully effective RIB launch and recovery system can be engineered into this type of craft- but this will need further consideration- see notes in part 2 section 14 regarding this aspect)


15 m FPV: Of the type in service with Jersey Marine Resources (sea fishery authority) around 15m, speeds up to 25/27 knots, aluminium.

12 m CRIB: Cabin RIB of the type in service with Qatar armed forces and Norwegian rescue services. There are numerous possible suppliers, GRP or aluminium, who build capable seaworthy craft although vessel capacity is limited by size.

The table below shows indicative capabilities of each of these potential assets, assessed by the capability index. Green indicates full capability and orange shows areas of some limitation.

Table 4

Enforcement

tasks

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Task element


Action of inspection (over 12 nm off and up to 60 nm) using boarding by RIB Coastal patrol (6-12 nm) to provide presence and deterrent

Action of inspection (6-12 nm) using boarding by RIB Inshore patrol (0-6 nm) to provide presence and deterrent

Action of inspection (0-6 nm) using boarding by RIB Pot lifting for compliance checking and if necessary seizing

Drift net recovery Overall index

Capability Index

required 625

2500

300

1875

150

1250

750

750

15625

CRIB 12m FPV 15m Cat 18m FPV 25m

375

1875

338

1875

375

1875

450

450

3750

375

1875

375

1875

375

1875

750

3750

9375

500

2500

500

2500

450

2500

1000

6250

Not surprisingly (as all these sample craft are designed or used for fisheries enforcement or similar purposes), most of them fully meet the capability index requirements but each vessel exhibits a different grade of operational range or ability.


625

3125

625

3125

563

3125

1250

6250

15625 15625

Section 10) Days at sea

In conjunction with any capability index approach, the other aspect driving the requirement is the number of days at sea. Any solution must meet both requirements; the vessel/s must be capable and must be at sea for an adequate number of days. (See Appendix C for detailed information regarding the requirement for days at sea).

At this point it needs to be remembered that, although the primary objective is to carry out the Enforcement tasks, the vessel may be used to carry out Ancillary tasks as well.

It should be noted, when considering days at sea, that there is generally no possibility to combine Enforcement and Ancillary tasks. For example, it is not possible to carry out a survey whilst doing inshore patrol in case a sudden inspection is required of the patrol causing the survey to be abandoned. Likewise sampling requires a static vessel, perhaps with no RIB on board, which would preclude any Enforcement boarding.

This is entirely consistent with our experience from other authorities.

Appendix C- days at sea data- shows the detail of how the development of the time requirement for the primary Enforcement role has been undertaken and derivation of the resulting number of 215 boat days per annum.

Appendix C also provides an alternative basis for consideration of this aspect- assessing usage by consideration of operational hours.

Appendix F explains how the development of the time requirement for the secondary role of carrying out Ancillary tasks has been undertaken and the derivation of the resulting number of 45 boat days per annum.


Section 11) Vessel Distribution Options

Given an indication from section 9 above regarding the type of vessel that might be suitable, the vessel distribution around the coast has been examined.

In this report principal vessels mean craft in excess of 11-12 m. The options presented may well be supported by smaller secondary craft, which are defined as being in the size region 6-10 m.

The coast of Wales can broadly be divided into North, West (or mid) and South, each of which could be patrolled by a dedicated principal vessel, therefore it is considered that there is no need for a solution using more than three principal vessels.

Amgram Ltd consider that there are solutions using 1, 2 or 3 principal vessels

Solution using one principal vessel

This option would utilise a single principal vessel, most probably based in Milford Haven. This base is suggested because this port offers the best access for patrol of the Celtic deep area, is an all-weather access port and would also most probably provide the best base for patrol of the whole Welsh coast.

Such a craft would need to fulfil all of the Enforcement tasks, so it would need to be around 20 to 25 m in length and have a speed capability of around 25 knots.

The requirement for the capability to police the Celtic deep would drive the preferred overall length of such a vessel towards 25 m in order to give the vessel better sea keeping characteristics, (in general terms larger vessels have better sea keeping than smaller ones).

The days at sea requirement would also require such a single vessel to be in operation for a substantial part of the year meaning that any sustained downtime period, whether planned or emergency, would render the enforcement system substantially inoperable.

(This is rated inoperable because any such single vessel option would need to be supported by some secondary craft (less than 10m), most probably three, typically located in Conway, Aberystwyth and Swansea to provide rapid response facilities and basic cover in the event of breakdown.)

The visibility of a single principal vessel would be highly predictable (to the fishing community) in terms of enforcement policy.

A single vessel option would need to be around 25 m in length in order to police the Celtic deep area. That size would be larger than is optimum for operation in many ports and some indeed would be inaccessible.

As noted above a single vessel option would need to operate for the greater part of the year. The total primary role requirement is estimated to be 215 days per annum on Enforcement tasks.

Although some work could be carried out by the smaller support craft and it is only Enforcement tasks that are being considered at this stage, because it was operational on these Enforcement tasks


for the greater part of the year, there would be very little operational slack and therefore no question of it performing any ancillary tasks in any planned way.

Solution using two principal vessels

This option would utilise two principal vessels, one based in Milford Haven, the other based in the northern sector at Conway or Holyhead.

The dominant requirement of the southern vessel would be to patrol the Celtic deep so the vessel would need to be 20 to 25 m and have a speed of 20-25 knots. A larger vessel would have better sea keeping and at the more detailed stage of any procurement process, careful consideration should be given to the speed/material trade-off for this vessel.

The northern vessel could be smaller in length in order to allow easier access to more ports. The Northern vessel would need to be of a similar speed, or perhaps greater, to allow patrol out towards the Celtic deep in reasonable weather.

Although denoted northern and southern vessel, if this option were to be developed it is suggested that the vessels should be viewed as completely interchangeable for particular operations. (This comment is only made because Amgram do not perceive interchangeability to have been a particular consideration of the current operational planning to date.)

This two vessel option offers a good solution in enforcement policing terms, offers some redundancy to a vessel breakdown and also offers some capacity for ancillary tasks.

Solution using two principal vessels with a support CRIB (2.5 vessels)

This option would utilise two principal vessels as above, one based in Milford Haven, the other based in the northern sector at Conway or Holyhead but operation would be refined by support from a smaller craft, most probably CRIB vessel type, based in Aberystwyth.

This 2.5 vessel option offers an enhanced better solution in enforcement policing terms, offers much better redundancy to a vessel breakdown and possibly offers some further capacity for carrying out Ancillary tasks.

This solution would also alleviate the requirement for the northern vessel to transit round the coast so frequently.

Solution using three principal vessels

This option, which falls out as a logical extension of option c) above, would utilise three principal vessels, one based in Milford Haven, one based mid Wales and one based in North Wales.

The dominant requirement of the Milford Haven based vessel would be to patrol the Celtic deep and so would need to be 20 to 25 m in length and have a speed of 25 knots.

Amgram consider that the justification for this option would only be valid if the other two vessels were smaller, typically 12-15 m with a speed capability of 25 to 30 knots, in order to substantially


avoid transit around the Llyn peninsular. In addition, the smaller (mid Wales and North Wales) vessels would need careful design to enable them to handle pots efficiently.

Such a proposal would also require a different way of vessel operation in mid and North Wales, as the smaller vessels would not have the facilities to sustain extended on board accommodation.

However greater vessel speed would allow more day duration operations and therefore on board accommodation is not expected to be such an issue.

This option offers a very good solution in enforcement policing, provides some limited redundancy to vessel breakdown, provides higher fleet flexibility and offers reasonable capacity for ancillary tasks.

Secondary vessels to support the solutions

It is expected that for any of the options described above some secondary vessels may be required. (Secondary vessels are generally defined as being in the 6 to 10 m length bracket). Generally such craft are capable of transport by trailer and indeed may even be stored on trailer for rapid deployment.

The exact requirement for secondary vessels in WGF enforcement work has not been specifically addressed here. That is partly because it is perceived to be variable and therefore difficult to exactly define. In addition there are a very significant number of smaller vessels, dinghies, inflatable boats RIBs, small catamarans and other craft available across a combined ownership of WGF, NRW and other third-party providers.

As part of a closer liaison between WGF and NRW it is recommended that consideration should be given to harmonising secondary craft, putting the maintenance into the hands of a third party provider resulting in a smaller fleet of ready use vessels.

Section 12) Constraints

Following the definition of the tasks and presentation of the options, (excluding the actual choice of the assets,) the problem is then constrained by the following major considerations;

i. Manning the assets to fulfil the requirement. ii. Berthing those assets.

iii. The cost of procuring and running those assets.

Manning has a number of variables to consider, (i.e. crewing methods, working hours and manning requirements), so this aspect is examined later in Appendix B.

Berthing possibilities have been addressed in Appendix E. This work shows in particular that there are significant constraints to operating a larger vessel in mid and north Wales.

Cost has been considered separately following refinement of the possible vessel solution options.


PART 2

Section 13) Rejected options

A single vessel solution has been rejected from any further consideration because;

It is too predictable in the pattern of operation for fisheries enforcement; deployment north would leave the mid and south coast effectively uncovered, the entire fishing fleet would know exactly where it was.

Location, for example, on the north coast would prevent any rapid response to a situation in the Celtic deep or the south coast and vice versa.

A single vessel would need to be large to deal with the operation in the Celtic deep, and this would preclude access to the smaller ports.

Any unplanned vessel failure would render the system substantially in operable (although a new craft could reasonably be expected to be reliable).

A single vessel would operate for the majority of the time to fulfil the Enforcement tasks, there would be limited slack for weather, maintenance and any unplanned downtime.

Due to the above capacity limitation, there would be little capability to carry out any ancillary tasks and limited capacity to meet any increased enforcement demands.

As a result solutions are further developed for 2, 2.5 or 3 vessels.

Section 14)

The 2 vessel solution: further consideration.

As mentioned in section 8 above, Amgram propose that the WGF policing of the Celtic deep is carried out by a smaller, faster vessel rather than the traditional FPS displacement craft but that it must be clearly understood that that there will be limitations on the weather in which such a vessel can operate.

For the 2 vessel solution, indeed for all of the solutions, the dominant requirement of the southern vessel would be to patrol the Celtic deep, therefore the vessel would need to be 20 to 25 m in length and have a speed of 20-25 knots. A larger vessel would have better sea keeping and a faster vessel would have improved capability for response.

Careful consideration should be given to the speed/material trade-off for this vessel. The options and relative merits of steel and aluminium as construction material need to be considered.

Steel is generally a cheaper material for construction, but brings with it maintenance and corrosion problems. It would be necessary to have an aluminium superstructure anyway. Additionally steel is significantly heavier, which in turn requires more power for a given speed. However for sea keeping weight may be an attractive feature, given the operational area.

Refined options: Vessel detail


Aluminium is a lighter, more expensive material but does not have the maintenance problems associated with steel attached to it. Aluminium however needs careful engineering in highly stressed areas and careful control of cathodic protection. It is generally easier to achieve a required speed with aluminium construction.

All weather pilot boats and patrol craft exist in both materials and the judgement is very finely balanced. In the balance, our view would probably be for aluminium.

For this project it may be best not to specify a particular material, perhaps only indicating a preference, leaving up to the commercial pressure of the market to determine the best cost/weight/speed value. This approach is particularly appropriate if the procurement ends up as a supply from a third party provider, in which case a performance specification will be written rather than a procurement specification.

Setting material choice apart, the southern sector vessel should be of the generic type of vessel used, for example, by DARD in Northern Ireland. This recommendation for the type of vessel in the southern sector applies to all the various solutions considered.

The biggest primary consideration in the 2 vessel solution is the type of vessel proposed for the northern sector.

It has been suggested earlier that a catamaran, 18 to 19 m, developed from proven craft in service in the wind farm market service would be suitable. Such a vessel would have the ability to access shallow draft areas, easily taking the ground if necessary. A catamaran would provide a stable platform both for enforcement work and ancillary tasks. In fact the stability of catamaran form would be a great positive for the ancillary tasks.

However it is a fundamental requirement of any new vessel procured as an asset that it should be capable of fulfilling the Enforcement tasks and therefore any new vessel must be able to effectively and efficiently launch and recover a RIB in a significant sea way.

Amgram Ltd are not currently aware of any catamaran form with this capability. Within the industry C Truck Ltd have a catamaran that deploys an amphibious vehicle and this is claimed to operate in 1.5 m significant waves, however it looks suitable for occasional rather than frequent operation and appears to be a first of class rather than a vessel in serious production.

Amgram Ltd has taken informal advice from BMT NGA, who are experienced catamaran designers who responded as follows;

NGA has not previously looked at RIB launch on smaller cats, although we have got experience of design of several stern launch systems on monohull vessels of the size you mention for fisheries and military applications. I think that stern ramp launch of RIBS on catamarans of this size could be problematic as the beam of the daughter vessel may be wider than the main hull tunnel width and therefore any movable lunch ramp will not be able to pass down between the hulls. Any fixed ramp would cause huge issues for vessel sea-keeping due to loss of wet deck clearance/tunnel blockage.


Only alternative might be an extending ramp aft of transom but this is likely to be complex/expensive. Happy to discuss in more detail as required.

In fact a typical 6 metre RIB has a beam of 2.5 m so it might be possible, with slight compromise to overall vessel beam and individual hull beam, to incorporate such an arrangement. What is beyond dispute is that any ramp launching arrangement would need to be rotatable or extendable.

The RIB launching problem from an 18 -19m catamaran may well be possible but it has not been done before. We consider it would need a more detailed design review. A successful system, which combined RIB launching with the platform stability of the catamaran, would be a powerful vessel. It must be noted that development and commissioning of any such system would bring with it some increased risk. It is considered that it should be further investigated.

The only alternative to a catamaran is a monohull vessel. If the northern sector vessel is to be a monohull, then the vessel will need to be in the 18 to 19 metre size range to provide standby facility and an element of interchangeability with the southern sector vessel. Ramp launched RIBs have been very successfully fitted to vessels in the size range 13 to 33 m, so fitting of a ramp to a craft of this 18-19 m size is perfectly normal.

The 2.5 vessel solution: further consideration.

As noted in section 11, where this idea was developed, a 2.5 vessel solution results in more assets offering provide more enforcement and policing capability, providing enhanced redundancy in the event of vessel breakdown and giving further capacity for ancillary tasks.

It has been denoted vessel solution because two of the vessels would be larger and the vessel would be smaller. (Additionally it may be considered as an intermediate solution between a 2 or 3 vessel options.)

Within the 2.5 vessel solution, the main vessels would be exactly as for the 2 vessel option above and are not discussed further here.

The smaller vessel is proposed to be a Cabin RIB, (denoted CRIB). The vessel would most probably be based in Aberystwyth.

The CRIB has to be a RIB type fendered vessel, constructed in GRP or aluminium, to allow boardings without using a separate RIB. The principle here is that the vessel has a carefully designed fender system; this removes the requirement for a separate RIB, which in turn allows the vessel to become much smaller. As the size decreases capital cost falls as well and this means that a CRIB can be considered as the 0.5 part of the solution. In the boarding context, the smaller the CRIB can be the better. Fender design is of course the key to the success of the CRIB concept.

The CRIB has to have a minimum speed of 25 knots (which will not be a problem, vessels of this type frequently operate at speeds in excess of 30 or even 40 knots). The CRIB has to have basic day accommodation for a minimum of three personnel and preferably for four or more. The wheelhouse/deck layout needs to be arranged so as to allow a pot hauler to operate.

With very careful design it is considered that such a vessel could be as small as 11 m and in our view certainly does not need to be any larger than 12 m.


There may be concerns within WGF about boarding fishing vessels from this type of craft. It would be a new way of working and there would be new techniques to learn. There are numerous vessels of this size in operation with a variety of other authorities and a simple trial could be arranged to allay those concerns.

With relatively high speed and the Aberystwyth base, the CRIB could respond rapidly to the mid Wales coast work and might be expected to operate on a shorter daily basis, typically eight hours, thus reducing the requirement for on-board accommodation.

The Aberystwyth base would allow this flexible and capable vessel, of relatively small size, to operate in the mid Wales sector.

The 2.5 vessel solution arose as a concept from consideration of whether a 2 vessel solution would provide adequate capacity. The CRIB, which would have the capability to deploy to either of the other two coasts either in support or to provide redundancy, undoubtedly provides significant additional capacity.

The 3 vessel solution: further consideration.

A 3 vessel option extends the concept of the 2.5 vessel solution, to substantially avoid transit of the vessel around the Llyn peninsular, which has benefits for the logistics of crew and overnight accommodation.

The southern sector vessel would be as described in the 2 vessel solution and is not further

discussed here.

The mid-sector vessel would be of the CRIB type described in the 2.5 vessel solution and is not further discussed here.

One possibility is that the northern sector vessel is a CRIB type, however this is not recommended. This was considered as it would represent significant cost savings. However overall it is considered that it would reduce the vessel capability too far. CRIB type vessels can be fitted with a pot hauler, but could not recover an entire string of pots in the same way that a 15 m vessel can. There are numerous other areas where the requirements would be compromised too much and it is for these reasons that the CRIB type vessel has been rejected as a possible solution for the Northern sector.

The northern sector vessel proposed would be a purpose designed fisheries enforcement vessel around 15 m in length, constructed in GRP or aluminium and capable of around 25 knots. The vessel would have a ramp launched RIB, a pot hauler and an A-frame davit and would be fully capable of carrying out the enforcement tasks and also providing additional capability for ancillary tasks. The generic type of vessel proposed is as used by JMR (Jersey Marine Resources- the sea fisheries authority in the States of Jersey).

There is no apparent reason that northern and mid-sector vessels should not be interchanged for operational reasons.


The three vessel solution gives great flexibility and full coastal redundancy, allowing northern mid- vessels to easily interchange. However this solution does not provide any cover beyond the level of coastal operation for the task of the southern sector vessel patrolling out to the Celtic deep, in the event of that vessel being deployed elsewhere or becoming inoperable.


Summary

From the costing analysis (section 17 and Appendix M), it can be seen that the 2.5 vessel solution is considerably more expensive, in terms of both maintenance and procurement. With reference to vessel utilisation for the Enforcement task alone, the 2.5 vessel solution appears to provide significant over capacity.

For these reasons the 2.5 vessel solution is not recommended for further development at this stage.

That leaves a choice between a 2 vessel and a 3 vessel solution. Indicative cost levels between these

two solutions are very similar.

If choosing between these options, the preference would be for a two vessel solution because;

The larger northern sector vessel will supply some redundancy to the southern sector vessel. By comparison, with a 3 vessel solution there would be no similar redundancy.

By having a single larger northern sector vessel (rather than a smaller vessel and mid Wales CRIB) the vessel will have better facilities to fulfil ancillary tasks, if in the future those are required to be carried out.

The expected utilisation per vessel with a 2 vessel solution will be higher than utilisation per vessel with the 3 vessel solution.

In the event of task demands increasing dramatically a 2 vessel solution can be extended, whereas with a 3 vessel solution extension of the fleet would most probably mean an newly procured vessel becoming redundant

It is also recommended that the possibility of the northern sector vessel being a catamaran form is more carefully investigated.

However considering the overall picture, that is the provision of Enforcement tasks as well as the provision of Ancillary tasks, a dilemma is raised by the results of investigating whether suitable service providers exist for the provision of Ancillary tasks.

Both the Bangor University vessel Madog and EA/Briggs craft Guardian and Guardian are effectively underused and are seeking additional work. Both providers appear well managed services for provision of the Ancillary tasks. Prices vary but the service appears to be cost effective. Additionally there are smaller craft operated by NRW which also provide resource for Ancillary tasks- a resource as yet completely unused by WGF.

Swansea University operate a vessel Noctiluca at approximately 50% utilisation, not only are they looking for additional work that they are also considering procuring a replacement vessel. Again the service appears cost-effective and to provide all the facilities that WGF scientists would need.

So although in overall terms a 2 vessel solution is considered to be better operationally for the Enforcement tasks, in respect of Ancillary tasks a 2 vessel solution provides over capacity - as all the ancillary tasks can in fact be carried out by underutilised contracted in services.

To build more craft and bring even more capacity into the overall system of available vessels, could leave WGF open to criticism for implementing an unnecessary and expensive solution which did not have sustainability as its core principle.


Section 15) Recommendation: phased 2 vessel solution

The dilemma referred to in the preceding section has caused some re-evaluation and has led finally to the recommended solution presented; a phased 2 vessel solution. It is recommended that the phasing should occur over about 5 year period.

The principal reason for phasing this solution is that there is some uncertainty about the actual demand of the Enforcement and Ancillary tasks. Best estimates have been made (as detailed at Appendix C) but the requirements could vary in either direction, so therefore an adaptable solution is considered highly desirable. It is most certainly recognized that, as the first new vessel came into service and as the new fishery enforcement system was developing, there would be a period of over capacity, until the new vessel was fully utilised.

This phased solution would use a combination of new and old assets to provide Enforcement tasks. Within this solution it is strongly recommended that Ancillary tasks would be provided substantially by outsourced services, certainly for the first 5 year period and, subject to review, possibly for longer.

The use of new and old assets would allow a new Enforcement service to be brought on line relatively rapidly, whilst retaining flexibility for future development and allowing the precise requirement for the second vessel to be determined.

The phased 2 vessel solution requires:

A primary vessel around 20 to 25 m with a speed of 20-25 knots. The vessel would be predominantly based in Milford Haven and would deploy out to the Celtic deep but would also have the capability to be relocated and patrol the whole Welsh coast. The total at sea requirement is around 200 days per year. The southern vessel would initially operate 100-140 days so would have medium utilisation but it is recognized that there would be some initial over capacity. It would fulfil the majority of the Enforcement tasks alone, but by virtue of its size would have the capacity to carry out some Ancillary tasks as specifically needed. (As noted elsewhere- this capacity can be designed in for virtually no cost at an early stage) Where port access was limited by size, the vessel can enter and exit on the same tide- fly the flag or keep station off the port (or anchor off) and allow fisheries officers to access by RIB. The vessel would be a new asset which could either be operated by WGF or by an external service provider (sub-contractor).


Supporting this would be a 2nd principal vessel.

The 2nd vessel would be required to provide additional capacity for the Enforcement tasks Based predominantly in the north. To carry out tasks especially on the north coast Required at the start of the new service as it is seen how demand really matches capability. To allow initial capability to access more easily the smaller ports. Because the ancillary tasks are largely outsourced, the 2nd vessel would not have to fulfil any aspect of these tasks The 2nd vessel would not be a new asset initially and could continue to be operated by WGF or handed over to a sub-contractor.

The recommendation is that the Aegis is initially utilized to provide the 2nd vessel, with an appropriate review to determine whether she is good for 5-10 years of further operation and a pot handling capability added as a minimum. That would be a rapid, cost effective way of providing the 2nd vessel with little immediate capital cost.

A replacement 2nd vessel will be needed in time but the procurement (and therefore the procurement cost) can be staggered to allow the new service to be fully assessed.

(There was some doubt about the effectiveness of the Aegis, both in terms of vessel size and utilisation as well as the effectiveness of her operating base. It is clearly understood that her operation suffered due to mechanical breakdown and then crewing problems, so the last few years have not been representative.

The above issues have now been corrected, so it is recommended that she should not be replaced until her role and ability have been further evaluated. That process can effectively start now.)

As the new service develops, if it appears that Aegis is underused and the capacity is deemed excessive, the Aegis can be replaced by a smaller CRIB type vessel, operated in the fashion described above in the 2.5 vessel solution.

If the Aegis is found to be well utilized and the capacity is deemed to be adequate, we would recommend a more like for like replacement- a vessel around 15-16m, operated in the fashion described in the 3 vessel solution above.

If the Aegis is very well utilized and her capacity is deemed to be inadequate, the Aegis can be replaced by a larger vessel as described in the 2 vessel solution.

(This last consideration may be particularly apt in 5-10 years as the current EA/Briggs contract starts to come to the end of its life. At this point it would be correct to consider pulling back the ancillary tasks outsourced, possibly with those of NRW and bring them both into the WGF remit, thus fully justifying a large 18m CAT type vessel as described in the 2 vessel solution, or to renew outsourcing contracts and replace Aegis with a smaller vessel)


It should be noted that during the initial 5 year phase, this solution has one significant drawback; the question of support if the primary vessel is out of action. In mitigation of this two points are made:

The 2nd vessel (of whatever form) would provide a basic level of coastal cover, leaving only the Celtic deep unpoliced in that event.

With a new purpose designed primary vessel, significant breakdown should be considered as a low risk event.

In the balance, for the flexibility offered, it is recommended that this is a reasonable level of risk to accept.


Section 16) Procurement options

Procurement options are in the second-hand or new markets.

The second-hand market is highly limited (there is very little suitable stock on the market), it brings with it the problem of buying used machinery and systems (the possibility of repair of expensive maintenance), and it is most unlikely to yield an asset that is purpose designed (implying necessity for substantial refit or modification to meet the requirements of the WGF tasks).

As a result procurement in the second hand market is not recommended for WGF.

To procure new assets there are a number of suggested possible procurement models:

i. WGF run the asset

a. WGF buy the asset and run it with WGF staff. b. WGF lease the maintained asset and operate it with WGF staff lease

hire or car model.

For this procurement model, if necessary, the running of the asset by WGF can be supported with contracted in crew.

ii. A subcontractor runs the asset a. WGF buy the asset and a subcontractor runs it b. A subcontractor buys and runs the asset.

It should be noted that this last approach would leave the vessel safety ultimately in control of the subcontractor and would effectively provide a service a vehicle and driver. WGF fisheries officers would be on board solely to carry out the enforcement role, not to operate the vessel/s.

Having a subcontractor running the asset, means that WGF are relieved of the business of running vessels and all the support services required for that. Overall cost indications indicate that the relative costs are fairly neutral between lease hire and subcontractor operation.


Section 17)

Vessel costs;

Table

5

Speed Material Length Displ't Raw Boat price data

FPV-

25m

CAT-

19m

FPV-

18m

FPV-

15m

CRIB-

12m

knots

25

25

Al

Al

0 m Tonnes

25

19

25 Al/GRP 18

25 Al 15

25 GRP/Al 12

50 2,475,000

30 1,900,000

25 1,700,000

18 1,120,000

12 550,000

Costing

Budget costs for vessels have been gathered from industry information and sources for a range of

craft. The source data is shown in Appendix M and a summary is shown below.

Project costs

Amgram has a project cost estimating sheet, which applies factors to allow for often forgotten

elements in the pre-build, build and post build periods. The sheet also allows for specialist

equipment that would be required on this type of vessel.

The summation of these items confirms that overall project costs are significantly higher than actual

vessel purchase prices alone. Project costs are used in considering the costing summations for this

report. The source data is shown in Appendix M and a summary is shown below.

Table 6 summary

Description

1) Pre build process

section 1 subtotal inc 5% estimating margin, allowance for errors and omissions

2) Build process


3) Post Build process


Total project cost estimate as at issue date

FPV-25m CAT-19m FPV-18m FPV-15m CRIB-

12m

87,413 67,725 61,425 41,580 22,050

3,277,260 2,773,838 2,394,368 1,631,900 808,710

41,265 38,115 38,115 38,115 30,240

3,405,938 2,879,678 2,493,908 1,711,595 861,000


From this cost data and the days at sea requirement, it is possible to generate budget project costs for each of the solutions: 2 vessels, 2.5 vessels and 3 vessels.

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

0

Solution type

Notes to the above:

In each case the capital cost shows excluding a minor capital allowance for equipment used for carrying out the ancillary tasks.

The 2 vessel solution costs are based on an 18-19m CAT, the use of a monohull would be a reduction to the costs.

The recommendation of a phased 2 vessel solution, will have an initial cost around 60% of the 2 vessel solution full cost. A second phase of cost at around 5 years time would bring it up to a maximum level of cost of the 2 vessel solution, although if the second vessel is smaller it could be below this limit.

Chart 1- Project Capital Cost 7,146,615

6,285,615 5,978,532

2BSOL EX ANCILL

2.5BSOL EX ANCILL

3BSOL EX ANCILL


Base running costs

Using factors applied to the power and size of the possible vessels, approximate comparative base running costs have been developed, which include insurance (1.5% allowed), fuel and maintenance costs but exclude all manning and crew services.

Chart 2- Comparative base running costs

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

0

1

560,735

507,021 544,421

2BSOL EX ANCILL

2.5BSOL EX ANCILL

3BSOL EX ANCILL

Chart 3- Project costs v Base running cost C

o

s

t

/ a n n u m 500,000

510,000

520,000

530,000

540,000

550,000

560,000

570,000

580,000

590,000

600,000

5,000,000

2BSOL EX ANCILL 2.5BSOL EX ANCILL 3BSOL EX ANCILL 2BSOL INC ANCILL 2.5BSOL INC ANCILL 3BSOL INC ANCILL

5,500,000 6,000,000 6,500,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

7,000,000 7,500,000


Financial Leasing costs

As mentioned earlier the possible procurement methods are outright purchase or lease purchase. Within lease purchase there are also two possibilities, maintained or non-maintained procurement.

Having established above that typical project capital costs for the 2 and 3 vessel solutions are in the order of 6.5 million (including some allowance for the cost of ancillary equipment), a lease cost calculator has been used to look at the financial procurement cost.

The financial lease cost calculator used has been prepared for Amgram by their accountants and requires inputs of lease period and required amount as well as the assumed residual value and interest rate.

A total required amount of 6.5 million over a period of 20 years or 240 months has been considered with an assumed interest rate of 5%.

The residual value has been assumed to be 0 after 20 years.

Loan Amount = cost of vessel to be financed less initial deposit payable (ie amount to be financed)

Residual Value = value of vessel at end of lease term and final payment to be paid to the lessor

Loan Information (Inputs) Loan Amount

Residual Value

Interest Rate (%) Number of Months

Outputs Monthly Payment Annual Payment Total Repayment Total Finance Cost

.

6,500,000.00 0.00

5%

240.00

42,897.12 514,765.48

10,295,309.53 3,795,309.53


Section 18) Operation of assets by other providers;

A possibility to be considered by WGF is the operation of assets by expert crewing companies.

To gain some indicative figures an informal approach has been made to Supplier 1, who are providers of crewed vessels. Supplier 1 was good enough to spend a significant amount of time and provide budget indications and some useful comment on maintenance costs.

The budget proposal was requested based on the following information;

The budget costs are to be based on a 10 year charter with say 5 x 1 year options after year 10. This assumes a typical 20 year project, so the suggested option at 10 and after is in place to allow review options for the next 20 year period.

Southern vessel: would be a 24-25m monohull, probably aluminium, 25knot speed, ramp launched 6m RIB, reasonably sophisticated electronics and plotting systems, an A frame aft and pot hauler facility forward. As a sample vessel see the attached Northern Ireland fisheries patrol vessel. Most probably based in Milford haven.

Northern vessel: would be a 18-19m vessel, preferably catamaran for motions, probably aluminium, ramp launched 6m RIB, reasonably sophisticated electronics and plotting systems, an A frame aft and pot hauler facility forward. (Note if an efficient ramp launching facility is not possible from a CAT, then this will have to become on monohull as well). It is assumed that this would be a slight development of a typical windfarm cat type vessel. Most probably based in Conwy or (less) possibly Holyhead.

Please assume a 2013-14 budget vessel cost of 2.5m for the first vessel and 2.1m for the second. Both costs are ex yard but including RIB, electronics and hydraulics. A further 10% contingency for in build variations has been allowed.

Supplier 1 responded;

For a budget quotation basis it has been assumed that the vessels are owned and run on a five- day week cycle. That is the vessels would be available for any five of the seven days of the week and in the remaining two by agreement and at additional cost.

This has the great benefit that the days can be increased or decreased depending demand.

It should be noted that in commercial terms, vessels operating 100 days per year is setting the bar quite low so in fact using more than 100 days does not significantly increased cost. Dedicated and full-time crews are required year round, so costs such as crew along with berthing fees insurance will remain pretty much the same whether working 50 days or 300 days as will the costs associated with capital expenditure. The only costs that increase with increase working are fuel and other food and supply related costs

The company has responded to two options;


Option A: WGF own the vessels and the subcontractor operates and maintains:

This would be done at a cost plus 15%, so elements such as crewing, routine maintenance, dockings, are easier to build costs around. There would also be an element to allow for day to day management such as administration, account, access to the purchasing system etc. This would be a fixed fee per annum to cover this and the other costs would be in addition.

The right Marine Superintendent and or management is essential to ensure the safe and efficient running of the vessels, both day to day but at times when management is required to look after major inspections, dockings, and refits or repairs, as well as in monitoring crew performance to ensure that the vessel is operated for the best performance for the customer and to the highest standards.

(Notes; The company declines to quote day rates for this option at this stage as this would expose the exact crewing and management costs, which the company regards as sensitive commercial information.)

Option B: The subcontractor owning operating and maintaining the vessels:

Availability will be for at least 5 days per week 52 weeks of the year, balanced to allow the vessel to work weekends as well.

Crew of 2 persons, Master plus Mate with suitable certificates.

Larger 24m vessel:

For the smaller vessel:

Crewing as per the larger vessel

Note that it is assumed in both cases that the charterer will provide extra personnel as and when operation require.

The rates include:

All crew cost based on 2 persons living on board Insurance, based on current market indications Maintenance, both routine and dockings Capital costs Management and superintendent oversight

The rates exclude;

Excludes fuel and lubrication oils Excludes overtime or extra days worked, both of which would be charged pro rata.


Rate per day, 2,850, so cost per annum 741,000.

Rate per day, 2,550, so cost per annum 663,000.

Rate to increase per annum by mutually agreed price index, to cover inflationary elements.

It is noted that under a 2 vessel solution WGF want to be able to run 100 150 days per year. In the commercial sector these figures would not suggest much value for government investment so the company propose that the vessels could also be deployed on work for the private sector or of course other government agency work.

Typical private sector work includes met-ocean / wave rider buoy deployment and recovery, normally planned but often retrieval is required at short notice, or the vessels being hired to act as survey or dive platform. These requirements are often short term and hoc for a few days or so and could fit in to the deployment plan of the vessels without removing the vessels from their core role for prolonged periods.

There could also be a role in deploying anti-pollution gear such as booms from these vessels, small scale of course but as the pollution itself is often small scale, localised and at coastal locations you would be assured that the authorities have access both and an ability to respond around the entire coastline in a fairly short time; good PR for WGF of course, being first on scene.


Outline of a subcontractor provided crewed service- service

There are of course examples of successful and unsuccessful subcontractor in Government procurement contracts. Generally it seems that where the contract definition is poorly defined or unclear, or the prospective scope is too wide, it is much harder to control the efficiency of the contract.

Although the set-up of such a contract would involve an amount of further work to define the details, at this stage it is useful to review the basis and broad outlines of such a service contract.

WGF would use a crewed service provided by a sub-contractor using the following broad principles:

A vessel would be provided by a subcontractor on a base price per day, excluding fuel cost. The sub-contractor would be completely responsible for providing a new suitable vessel, manning, coding, insuring, berthing, maintaining and repairing it. The requirement would be to deliver a type service. WGF would have input by way of a performance specification into the design and layout of vessel arrangements and facilities. WGF would carry out trials at vessel acceptance to confirm that the met the WGF performance requirements

The vessel would be available for normal operation 260 days per year

Normal operation would be defined as any 5 days of a seven day week and would assume a reasonable mix of weekend and non-weekend working. A normal operating day would be defined as maximum 12 hour period, berth to berth. Normal operation could be varied by reasonable prior agreement to be, say, 7 days one week and 3 days the next week.

There would be a menu of additional price options to cover additional rates for extra services such as:

Vessel use over a total of 260 days per year. Vessel use over 12 hours per day. Vessel use for 24hr working (which might require additional crew). Other requirements for additional crew (for example to drive a RIB, or to operate specialist deck equipment) over and above the normal vessel manning. Other potential additional services; There would be an agreed commercial structure for fitting, say, a piece of specialist equipment, such as a new sounder or a scientific item.

The subcontractor would captain, helm and operate the vessel.

The subcontractor would probably physically operate from a separate dedicated helm and navigation station.

The fisheries officers would have a dedicated navigation and evidence gathering station.

The interaction between the sub-contractor and the WGF staff would need careful consideration. The following are suggested starting points for consideration:


The WGF personnel would join in the general operating of the boat; mooring, taking warps, docking. The WGF personnel would join in launching/recovering the RIB, deploying or operating deck or scientific equipment. The WGF personnel would be responsible for crewing and operating the RIB. Occasionally a subcontracted staff member might need to be utilised on the RIB The subcontractor would have the responsibility of storing the vessel, all fuel, food, water etc.

The subcontractor would have the responsibility of procuring supplies of specialist equipment where needed and/or where directed, with an agreed purchasing cost or mark-up. The subcontractor would have the responsibility of maintaining and cleaning the vessel.

Both parties should have a responsibility for cooking/daily cleaning- to be discussed but it is a taxi service, not a hotel!

Particular interaction areas which would need careful definition, and no doubt an element of development, might arise in the following areas:

! Vessel safety- the subcontractor (as Master) would have to have the final say about vessel safety and the limit to operating conditions.

! RIB launching and boarding operations- the conditions at which these would be stopped would have to be developed with a sub-contractor. However similar issues arise with the boarding of engineers to wind farms and no doubt some good lessons could be learnt from that sector.

As noted above, inevitably there would be some development needed to exactly tailor the crewed service to the needs of the WGF, but there are large numbers of marine operations utilising crewed charter services around the world, so this is well trodden ground.

Outline of a subcontractor provided vessel- car service:

As an alternative there is the car type service where the contractor provides a maintained vessel:

Although the set-up of such a contract would involve an amount of further work to define the details, at this stage it is useful to review the basis and broad outlines of such a service contract.

WGF would use a maintained vessel provided by a sub-contractor using the following broad principles:

A vessel would be provided by a subcontractor on a base price per day, excluding fuel cost. The sub-contractor would be completely responsible for providing a new suitable vessel,

coding, insuring, berthing, maintaining and repairing it. The requirement would be to deliver a car type service.

WGF would have input by way of a performance specification into the design and layout of vessel arrangements and facilities.


WGF would carry out trials at vessel acceptance to confirm that the met the WGF performance requirements

The vessel would be available for normal operation 260 days per year

Normal operation would be defined as any 5 days of a seven day week and would assume a reasonable mix of weekend and non-weekend working. A normal operating day would be defined as maximum 12 hour period, berth to berth. Normal operation could be varied by reasonable prior agreement to be, say, 7 days one week and 3 days the next week.

Note: It is assumed in the above that expected WGF usage would be a maximum of 200 days. 260 days availability has been chosen to allow some margin on this and room for growth on the expected usage figure and to allow the sub-contractor a firm basis for quotation. Clearly the vessel is not required on a 365 day requirement, so it is accepted that there will be defined periods when it is not available (planned out of water refit, Christmas, and a few other agreed days perhaps totalling 4 weeks or 28 days). Apart from those days and with a reasonable amount of prior notice for usage, the vessel is assumed to be available for any of the other remaining 337 days of the year.

There would be a menu of additional price options to cover additional rates for extra services such as:

Vessel use over a total of 260 days per year, each of 12 hour duration. Other requirements for additional crew (for example to drive a RIB, or to operate specialist deck equipment) over and above the normal vessel manning. Other potential additional services; There would be an agreed commercial structure for fitting, say, a piece of specialist equipment, such as a new sounder or a scientific item.

The subcontractor would not man the vessel.

Supplier1 pointed out that supplying some crew would provide of the vessel. Supplier 1 recommended as a minimum supplying some element of the crewing- perhaps the engineer deckhand, even if WGF ended up providing the Captain.

WGF would operate the vessel and the fisheries officers would have a dedicated navigation and evidence gathering station.

The interaction between the sub-contractor and the WGF staff would need careful consideration. The following are suggested starting points for consideration:

WGF would report usage and all problems to the subcontractor on a daily basis. The WGF personnel would operate the boat; mooring, taking warps, docking. The WGF personnel would operate the RIB, deploying or operating deck or scientific equipment. The WGF personnel would be responsible for crewing and operating the RIB. Occasionally a subcontracted staff member might need to be utilised on the RIB The subcontractor would have the responsibility of storing the vessel, all fuel, oils, water etc. WGF would have the responsibility of storing the vessel for food and hotel supplies


The subcontractor would have the responsibility of procuring supplies of specialist equipment where needed and/or where directed, with an agreed purchasing cost or mark-up. The subcontractor would have the responsibility of maintaining and cleaning the vessel.

Particular interaction areas which would need careful definition, and no doubt an element of development, might arise in the following areas:

! Vessel safety- the subcontractor (as Owner) might have to have a say about the conditions in which the boat operated.

! There would have to be a mechanism for investigating unreasonable maintenance issues

Transition from WGF run vessels to a use of a subcontractor service:

With the phased procurement of the new craft, recommended to be operated (wholly or partially) by a subcontractor, there would be a period where the current assets would need to be in use before the new asset (or assets) could be operational due to the procurement and build timescale.

In order to ensure a smoother transition of the enforcement service, the recommendation is that the current assets be transferred across to the incoming subcontractor to operate on an interim basis at the commencement of the contract.

Such an approach would allow immediate transition of the crewing and operation of the enforcement system, rather than waiting till the arrival of a new craft and transferring the operation at the same time as bringing new craft into service. It would also ensure that the crewing and operating basis for both north and south based staff was equal, as the Cranogwen dropped out of service and the new asset took over.

There would be some issues for potential subcontractors with the assessment of maintenance requirements, as it would be necessary to keep the Cranogwen in service for around 2 years and the Aegis in service for around 5 years. To overcome this it is recommended that the requirement to take on and operate the current assets would simply become a condition of the tender for the subcontracted service. In fact sub-contractors might prefer to provide and operate other interim craft but that would become apparent in tender responses.

It would also be necessary to format the tender to allow suitable provision for exercising an option (or not) to operate a northern boat. It has to be remembered that the phased procurement approach recommendation is put forward both to smooth out cost demand but also to allow a true assessment of whether a vessel is needed in the northern sector and, if so, exactly what that vessel type is.


Section 19) Summary of overall project costs

From the data above, it is possible to assemble outline project costs and to compare between the three procurement methods: outright procurement and operation by WGF, lease hire purchase and operation by WGF and complete operation by a subcontractor.

It should be noted that tables 7a and 7b, shown below, seek to compare the costs of operating the service, so they include assumed costs for the crew, but not costs for the provision of the Fishery officers.

In the service, the crewing is clearly part of the subcontractor costs. However to make the comparison equal for the car element of cost of crew must be included. This cost element has been expressed as 3 crew, at an assumed cost per annum and assumed overhead. It has also been assumed that it would require 3 personnel to provide 2 crew on station (allowing for the effect of working time availability and also holiday cover).

It is true to say that if these are WGF staff, they could carry out some element of Fishery officer duties, so the comparison is not perfect that respect, but this analysis is considered to be reasonably fair and accurate for a comparative basis.

The example shown is calculated for the 2 vessel solution but can be reasonably assumed to show the indicative trend of the other solutions.

In the tables below:

Nominal sums have been allowed for WGF personnel overheads and management costs. Assumptions have been made about the leaseholder operating costs and risk and profit margin. Insurance have been assumed to be 1.5% of vessel value, following some industry advice. The examples are at current rates and exclude any inflation costs Some reduction has been made in project capital cost, due to the reduction of WGF and consultancy input (for example from 3.405m outright purchase to 3.2m leasehire).

The indication is that within the accuracy of the estimates, over a 20 year period, there is little significant difference between the costs of WGF leasehire and operating, compared to a subcontractor providing a fully crewed vessel service.

In summary for a subcontractor own and operate- the service WGF would be relieved of the entire organisational aspect of running and operating a vessel or vessels. WGF would have a closely known cost budget with (subject to the variations mentioned above) no capital cost of procurement. The vessel could be directed to carry out Enforcement tasks and, later if necessary Ancillary tasks, as WGF chose.

It is considered that the benefits of a crewed service outweigh the disadvantages and, providing tendered costs support the budgets given in this report, as a result it is recommended that the new assets are procured on a crewed charter basis.


Table 7a- comparative costs for a 2 vessel solution - 20 years WGF buys and

runs

"own car"

residual value

Capital cost north ex finance costs Capital cost south ex any finance costs assumed capital cost for finance basis northern vessel

assumed capital cost for finance basis southern vessel

Northern vessel- 19m

Finance costs per annum over 20 years assumed at 5%

Establishment running costs Insurance 1.5%

Maintenance

Vessel management costs; office support, etc

Daily running costs

3 crew (each 30k/year with 100% overhead

Fuel

Southern vessel- 25m



Maintenance


Daily running costs 3 crew (each 30k/year with 100%

overhead

Fuel

Leaseholder Risk and Profit margin (assumed) Total running cost per year

Total cost over 20 years less residuary value

excludes;

capital finance costs Fisheries officers

on board accommodation costs for

officers

Port dues

20

917,021

24,626,035

1,634,135

32,682,708

1,669,396

33,387,920

33%

180,000

159,444

180,000

159,444

250,288.72

159,444

5%

37,125 100,000

25,000

180,000

105,952

180,000

105,952

253,000

741,000

37,125 100,000

25,000

105,952

5% 0

28,500

76,000

25,000

0

2,879,678 3,405,938

WGF leasehire S/C buys and runs

"hire car"

0

0

0

2,700,000

3,200,000

"taxi"

0

0

0

213,826 0

663,000 28,500

76,000

25,000

***

***

***

***

not applicable ***

***

***

not applicable ***

***

***


As it has been recommended that a phased approach should be taken, the cost details for the first boat, on a similar basis with similar assumptions, are also presented below:

Table 7b- comparative costs for first boat of a 2 vessel solution - 20 years WGF buys and

runs

"own car"

residual value

Capital cost south ex any finance costs

assumed capital cost for finance basis

Southern vessel- 25m



Maintenance


Daily running costs 3 crew (each 30k/year with 100% overhead

Fuel

Leaseholder Risk and Profit margin (assumed)

Total running cost per year

Total cost over 20 years less residuary value

excludes;

capital finance costs

20

33%

180,000

159,444

180,000

159,444

145,241.25

159,444

0

5%

0

3,405,938

"hire car"

0

0

3,200,000

0 253,000 0

741,000

37,125 100,000

50,000

37,125 100,000

50,000

WGF leasehire S/C buys and runs

"taxi"

0

0

526,569

13,937,318

924,810

18,496,205

900,444

18,008,880

*** not applicable not applicable


Section 20) Other providers for ancillary tasks

It is not considered that there is any possibility that the Enforcement tasks can be outsourced, primarily due to the type of vessels required but equally to the usage pattern- driven as it is by weather, stocks, fishing areas and market intelligence.

However there are possibilities to outsource the provision of vessels for Ancillary tasks. Outline investigations have been made with known providers to determine budget costs of outsourcing the Ancillary tasks.

Full details of preliminary discussion with known providers and assets are provided in Appendix N and a summary of potential assets is shown below.

Vessel

Prince Madog

basic details

30 m research vessel

run by PO MS Seven Guardian 18 m catamaran run

by Briggs RV Noctiluca 12.5 m catamaran run

by Swansea University

approximate cost per day

2013

2120

Operated under contract

SU looking for a new vessel

It is clear from this work that the projected cost of the boat days for the ancillary tasks, using an estimated 45 day period, could range from 90,612 t

Based on the information in Appendix N, it is suggested that there would probably be a mix of vessels used and that a budget in the order of 180,000 would provide the necessary annual sea days for Ancillary tasks.

The enquiries made have indicated that there is substantial availability at costs that will be around or below typical costs for WGF owned vessels.

Based on this work it is recommended that the Ancillary tasks should be subcontracted to these or other service providers.

notes


Section 21) Relationship to NRW

NRW is a recently formed agency, which came into operation in April 2013 from a standing start, so at the time of writing is not quite a year old.

In particular NRW brings together the Welsh aspects of the Environment Agency (EA) and the Countryside Commission for Wales (CCW) together with the Forestry commission.

NRW provide two main parts of work relevant to this report.

Firstly EA work which is sampling and evaluation for bathing water quality, shellfish directive, water framework directive, freshwater fish enforcement and sampling, control of some cockle fisheries.

Secondly the CCW part which is habitat directive monitoring of SAC features and uses similar monitoring methods to the above, additionally carrying out bird surveys and deploying divers.

In respect of the legacy EA work, the NRW has inherited the arrangements made previously. These are the provision of sampling work carried out under contract by the EA (UK) by means of a contract with Briggs as a service provider- see further detail in Appendix N.

The NRW provide the CCW work by use of other smaller vessels referred to in the Appendix P- floating stock summary. Three of these smaller vessels are maintained by Briggs but all are crewed and operated by NRW personnel.

It should be noted that all the people we have discussed this with, indicate that the Briggs contract operates well, provides the service needed and represents good value for money. Visual inspection of the Briggs craft shows them to be well equipped, purpose designed, capable survey vessels.

Although the specific seabed areas sampled do not necessarily overlap, the type of work that NRW do under contract with EA (UK) has significant overlap to that of the WGF. EA (UK) indicates that if the programmes were aligned there could be significant savings.

The scope of this report is tasked by WGF to investigate Welsh Fisheries Enforcement and Ancillary scientific tasks and how they might be best carried out.

Everything we have seen has indicated that there is considerable synergy (and therefore potential for cost saving) to be found by the closer integration of these two scientific research and data programmes.

It is not suggested that either authority can carry out the others function but we believe they could run in close parallel, especially where the utilization of marine assets are concerned.


Section 22) Typical procurement timescales

The following is a brief summary of the likely timescales for procurement of a new vessel. The example project plan shown below is for a 25 m vessel. It should be noted that there is no slack allowed in this timescale

The summary timescale is based on enough information being available at the very start of the process to allow the EU Journal advert to be placed.

The estimated best procurement process lead time, with no slack, is 7.5 months for a 25m vessel.


The process for smaller craft will be shorter but not by a very significant margin, perhaps by 4-6 weeks.

In respect of procurement, the two biggest factors in the procurement process lead time are the time taken to advertise in the OJ EU and the Builder response time. The Journal advert time can be utilised by paralleling the preparation of detailed specifications, discussion and refinement with WGF. The Builder response time cannot realistically be shortened. Shortening the response time inevitably limits the number of Builders that can respond properly and effectively. Shortening response time is seldom in the best interests of the procuring authority.

Looking at the overall programme, the total time to procure, build and bring to service a 25m vessel is shown below. The estimated total programme time for this is 26 months. There are some ways to compress this by approximately 4-5 months if necessary.

Alongside the procurement timescale a short review of cash flow implications is summarised below:


Outright purchase This requires the full funding of a vessel procurement. Typically the following would be the cash flow stages in such a procurement:

10% with contract

15% on completion of design info 20% on completion of hull structure 15% on delivery main engines 15% on completion of installation main engines and shaft line 10% on completion of trials 10% on acceptance 5% on completion of guarantee period

With that cash flow being spread over the whole build period

As the vessel came into service WGF would start to see the operational costs of WGF fishery officers, crewing, fuel and all the support and maintenance demands.

Leasehire: car service

This depends on the fine detail of the contract, but in principle there would be constant payment per

month, which would not vary, subject to the effect of inflation and the use of any additional services.

As the vessel came into service WGF would start to see the operational costs of WGF fishery officers, crewing, fuel and use of any additional services.

Full subcontractor operation: service This depends on the fine detail of the contract, but in principle there would be constant payment per

month, which would not vary, subject to the effect of inflation

As the vessel came into service WGF would start to see the operational costs of WGF fishery officers,

fuel and the use of any additional services.


Section 23) Appendix A: Capability index

The capability index developed scores any vessel on a combination of six standard factors. There is an additional, subjective scoring adjustment for any particularly significant factors.

All the standard factors have been rated on the scale 1 to 5 and there is no weighting because all these standard factors have been judged to be equally significant in terms of in the ability of the vessel to perform the Enforcement tasks. (It is possible to adjust the relative weighting of these performance aspects and by doing so make variation to the scale of the capability index.)

Speed is input in knots and divided by 5 to get the speed index.

Speed is defined as the minimum speed that is required to get to location to perform task, or to perform task when on location

Speed is considered to be significantly important to the new assets. Reasonable speed will enable vessels to cover ground more quickly, deploy from place to place more rapidly and may allow operation on a daytime basis.

Sea keeping is split into two scoring parts: Overall sea keeping (or the capability to sail) Operational sea keeping (or the capability to carry out particular task)

Habitability Capability for on-board accommodation: 1 denotes no cabin all, 3 denotes basic cabin, 5 denotes full accommodation

RIB & System provision of a RIB and launching capacity- fully effective launch and recovery system: 1 denotes no capability, 5 denotes fully capable system

Where a smaller vessel such as 6m RIB or CRIB is used, (the CRIB of course acts as the RIB), it is scored at 5

Pot hauler

Other factors

Range

Pot hauler and pot handling equipment- fully effective system- as per commercial vessel: 1 denotes no capability, 5 denotes fully capable system

the additional scoring adjustment increases or reduces the overall score by a percentage factor.

has not been considered as a factor because any new vessel can be built with proper range capacity. It is known that the Aegis has limited range, which can be accepted on an interim basis but that only serves to underline her long-term unsuitability.

The capability index is a crude objective measure of vessel capability to perform a particular task. The capability index cannot be used in isolation to view vessel capability, so there must be some acknowledgement of the subjective aspects.


Units/score factors

Enforcement tasks

Task element

knots 1 low 5 high

Speed Other factors

BF 1-5

Seakeeping Overall

BF 1-5

Seakeeping Operational

1 low 5 high

1 low 5 high

Habitability RIB and launching system

1 low 5 high Pot

hauler system and

suitable layout

1 Patrol to limits (over 12 nm off and up to 60 nm) to provide presence and deterrent

2 Action of inspection (over 12 nm off and up to 60 nm) using boarding by RIB

3 Coastal patrol (6-12 nm) to provide presence and deterrent

4

5

6

7

Action of inspection (6- 12 nm) using boarding by RIB Inshore patrol (0-6 nm) to provide presence and deterrent Action of inspection (0- 6 nm) using boarding by RIB Pot lifting for compliance checking and if necessary seizing

8 Drift net recovery Overall index

25 1 5 5 5 1 1 5 625

1 low 5 high Speed index

Capability Index

required

25 1 5 5 4 5 1 5 2500

20 1 5 5 3 1 1 4 300

25

15

25

10

1

1

1

1

5 5

5

5

5

5

5

5

3

2

2

3

5

1

5

1

1

1

1

5

5

3

5

2

1875

150

1250

750

10 25

1 1

5 5

5 5

3 5

5 5

1 5

2 5

750 15625


For example it can be seen above, that inspection and boarding by a RIB can be achieved with a relatively low capability inshore. That requirement increases in the region 6-12 nautical mile and increases again further offshore.

The task to patrol inshore waters (excluding the requirement to board) is the lowest requirement. Again the capability index increases with the distance offshore.

If the capability for inspection and boarding by RIB of the Cranogwen and the Aegis compared using the capability index, the Aegis is over twice as capable. In practical terms this seems reasonable: RIB boarding from the Cranogwen is highly limited by wind, sea state and roll. Ignoring any mechanical breakdown, it seems completely reasonable that twice as many vessels could be boarded from the Aegis as the Cranogwen in a given time.

When it comes to reviewing other assets, in many cases the capability index is much higher than is required. This should not be read as the assets being supremely capable of that particular task, more as the asset having good capability at that task and having capability for other aspects as well.


Section 24) Appendix B: Manning requirements

Any vessel operating under the MCA Code has to comply with minimum manning requirements.

Below is an extract from the MGN 280 code:

All WGF vessel operations are in area category 2, with the exception of the very extent of the Celtic deep operations, which may extend into area category 1.


Summary of the above code requirements:

Qualified skipper as per table 1 page 124 (yacht master offshore is suitable up to category one).

Plus

Deck hand (additional person as per table 1) deemed for cat 2, coastal Skipper for cat 1

Plus

Engineer (who may be the deck hand above-this does not have to be an additional requirement) who has completed approved engine course (AEC)

So it appears for all the types of vessels that could be considered for this project, the minimum requirement is 2 persons.

The manning requirement over above that is driven by the watch keeping and hours of work provisions.

Research in the workboat industry indicates that in due course the skippers may well need the 200GT ticket, as the way the industry is heading as a standard or preference. Additionally perhaps all crew will have to have some form of approved engine maintenance course.

All the indications are that the demands on the level of management input required for crew provision will become tougher.


Section 25) Appendix C: Days at sea data

WGF have provided vessel usage data principally from Captains

Historical usage data:

Appendix C: Historical hours usage Cranogwen Target

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

TOTAL

Actual below

Target

Actual days at 7.1 hrs per day

Aegis TOTAL

146

8

15

16

16

16

15

10

10

10

4

5

5

130

Target

Days Hours

(8 hr day) 64

120

128

128

128

120

80

80

80

32

40

40

1040

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual

Days Hours Days Hours Days Hours Days Hours

2009-10

0

2

17

7

9

17

11

3

12

5

11

7

101

-29

2010-11

0

13

166

76

78

183

85

34

97

43

108

53

935

2

0

4

5

8

16

0

39

47

80

12 131

8

7

1

16 151

63 609

-67

79

58

10

2011-12

11

2

3

7

9

3

7

5

0

7

6

5

96

25

30

47

70

11

52

44

0

72

60

46

65 552

-65

2012-13

3

3

2

0

1

0

1

5

0

2

5

5

29

16

13

0

12

0

6

45

0

20

39

14

27 192

-103

132 86 78 27

no data no data 30 210 23 160 29


Data on vessel fuel usage

The data needed to be adjusted slightly to reflect the financial year basis of the other historical usage data.

Appendix C Fuel usage data

Cranogwen Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Sep Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Total Litres

Aegis

Apr May Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Total Litres

1200

800

2311

1350

4150

4113

no data 17924 15582

2100

3931

1350

1001

3900

61

61

2400

6000

6000

5000

6000

6000 12000 14000

2000

2000

5500

18400

1500

1800

4500 9015

2221

3000

1400

4500

3400

4500

4500

4515

5000

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

4500

4500

9021

The vessel usage data for the Aegis in particular does not really tie up with the fuel consumption data, where Aegis shows high fuel consumption in years 2010-11 and 2011-12. In this period vessel usage data is low, however it is known that at the beginning of 2010 the skipper left the vessel, leaving

to stand in without a full complement of crew until May 2013. As a result data for these years are not really present a true picture of how many sea days Aegis completed in 2010.


Other data

Amgram do not consider that any further archival excavation of this data is very worthwhile. In our view, by far the most relevant documents supplied by WGF are the notes of the meeting in May 2013, a meeting which was set up to look at the days at sea and review the reasons and problems that had caused low vessel usage.

Days at Sea

Days where vessel not available Mechanical Issues/Refit Shortage of Crew Shore side Enforcement/Surveys Training Court

Side Scan Sonar equipment Miscellaneous/Meetings TOTAL

DAYS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR

Aegis 29

75

35

46

4

0

0

7

196

156

Cranogwen 27

19

44

26

23

2

12

13

166

186

From this document it can be seen that for both vessels there are significant tangible reasons for failing to get anywhere near the 2009 target figure of 130 days at sea. Significant periods of non-operational time were caused by mechanical issues, crew shortage, shore work and training.

At the outcome of the meeting on 20th May, both vessel skippers considered 60 days at sea to be an achievable target with these current vessels and current crewing limitations.

This is further borne out by an analysis done b theoretical available days at sea:

Appendix C

Period Days Hours at (7.4 / day)

1 year 365

Deductions

2701 annual leave

bank holidays & PD Admin hrs/yr Maintenance hrs/yr

hours at sea / day Available hrs

Days at sea / yr Days at sea / mth hours at sea / day Available hrs

Days at sea / yr Days at sea / mth

Days Hours Total Hours

31

9

229.4

66.6

550

450

14

1405

100

8

12

1405

117

10

Theoretical Days at Sea available are 100 (8 per month) based on a 14 hour day. Theoretical Days at Sea available are 117 (10 per month) based on a 12 hour day. At present, with current staff levels assets etc, trying to achieve 5 days per month a total of 60 days per year.


1296

analysis clearly highlights how much of his time as a WGF fisheries enforcement officer is taken up by maintenance and administration.

In meeting discussions with Amgram, a target of up to 100 days at sea per vessel have been discussed.

Meeting 001 MS suggested target 75 to 100 days at sea. Meeting 002 MP (meeting notes ref 1.14) suggested a target of 100 days. PR (meeting notes ref 4.19) suggested at sea could be more than doubled which implies in excess of 60 days.

For information, there are typically 250 working days in a year.

From the above, Amgram consider that a target time of around 60 days is too low a minimum to provide policing and enforcement at the current level of demand. (Just to set that in some more perspective, 60 days per year is 5 days per month or just over a day per week.)

72 days (6 days per month or 1.4 days per week) seems a more realistic absolute minimum target for the current level. This has been taken as the basis for the following assumptions on vessel demand.

Development of days at sea requirement going forward

WGF have confirmed that due to changes in the CFP, there will be more demand on fisheries protection officers.

Workload will increase as there are areas that are not covered, due to a combination of days at sea and current asset capability.

Workload will increase due to new discard regulations. Workload will increase due to the withdrawal of the RN policing the Celtic deep Workload will increase due to the withdrawal of air flights.

The following table shows the development, from this minimum base, of a prediction for the days at sea requirements in both the North and South.


Tasks

Appendix C- Potential demand for days at sea Done by

Enforcement tasks South


Action of inspection (over 12 nm off and up to 60 nm) using boarding by RIB

Days at

sea

Not currently done by WGF (or rarely) - done by RN and plane

Not currently done by WGF (or rarely) - done by RN and plane

24 Data indicates that in the last year the RN spent 14 off, 24 hour days on WGF related inspection. This did not include any transit time, so is regarded as time fully employed on station. However, time on station may not represent time on task, as there may be weather considerations limiting boardings. It is not expected that a new FPV would normally spend extended overnight periods at sea. It is suggested that this is not planned for. Overnight periods may occur during good weather or dedicated night operations but should not be regarded as normal. It has been generally assumed that a new vessel would steam out and back daily. However the FPV will be capable of speeds around 25 knots, so transit to and from the Celtic deep areas can be achieved, in reasonable weather, in 2-3 hours allowing both targeted response and day operations. Taking all the above into account, the time demand has been assessed as 24 days

Coastal patrol (6-12 nm) to provide presence and deterrent

Action of inspection (6-12 nm) using boarding by RIB

Inshore patrol (0-6 nm) to provide presence and deterrent

Action of inspection (0-6 nm) using boarding by RIB Pot lifting for compliance checking and if necessary seizing

Drift net recovery Increased workload due to full

coverage, possible with new assets

Increased workload due to

discard regulations Subtotal

Workload reduction due to

increased speed

WGF and RN

overlap WGF and RN

overlap WGF

WGF

WGF

WGF

15%

20%

-15%

11 Estimated 15% as the current shortfall in operations- i.e. work that is just not done at present.

14 Assessed as 20% additional from conversations with WGF

officers.

121

-18 Cranogwen will typically spend 4 hours on a transit and 4 hours on task in a given day. Increasing speed from the current 10 knots to 20 knots (or possibly more) would allow an addition 2 hours of task per day. This does not apply in every case and has been assessed to be typically 15% across the range of tasks

Overall demand south

Enforcement tasks North

Inshore patrol 6-12 & provide to provide presence and deterrent

WGF and RN

overlap

103

72 Based on current information and regarded as a minimum. See other data in Appendix C

72 Based on current information and regarded as a minimum. See other data in Appendix C

Notes


Action of inspection (6-12 miles) using boarding by rib

Inshore patrol 0-6 & provide to provide presence and deterrent

Action of inspection (0-6 miles) using boarding by rib

Pot lifting for compliance checking and if necessary seizing

Drift net recovery Increased workload due to full

coverage, possible with new assets

Increased workload due to

discard regulations Subtotal

Workload reduction due to

increased speed

Overall demand north

Overall total days at sea requirement

WGF and RN

overlap

WGF

WGF

WGF

WGF

15%

20%

-10%

11 Estimated as the current shortfall in operations

14 Assessed as 20% additional from conversations with

officers.

97

-10 A new boat or boats would have a higher speed capability than Aegis and, although not by the same margin as down south, it is reasonable to expect some efficiency benefit from a new asset

87

191

Rounding this up, from the above, a reasonable estimation of the time requirement for the primary role of Enforcement along the whole Welsh coastline is: 200 days at sea


Investigation by operational hours

As a comparison with the above approach, vessel usage can also be reviewed in terms of operational hours.

In very broad terms, the commercial workboat industry would regard the operational hours categories as follows:

500-800

1500-2000

Low usage vessels Medium usage vessels

3000 and above High usage

200 days referred to above, assuming a 12 hour day, is equivalent to 2400 hours - top end of medium usage/ lower end of high usage.

Setting aside any operational considerations, this level of usage would be comfortably within the scope of a single commercial vessel operating in the medium duty band.


Section 26) Appendix D: Hours of work

Vessels, whether operated by subcontractor or by WGF staff, need to be operated to comply with the requirements of the Code, as the extract below:

All WGF fisheries officers are currently employed on government contacts, with a set number of working hours per week and an annual hours summary.

Amgram may need to have further discussion with WGF officers to understand what manning arrangement and agreements have been set in place.

It is suggested that if WGF staff are to operate the vessels effectively, there may need to be some further discussion to increase flexibility and allow sufficient staff resources to ensure the vessels can operate unhindered by manpower shortages.


Section 27) Appendix E. Ports around the Welsh coast.

WGF Fisheries officers have assisted to compile this matrix of port data:

Appendix E- Port information

Port Access

Conwy and Deganwy

Access

three hours

either side

of high water.

Rhyl 1.5 hrs.

either side

of HW Dries

Shelter

Shelter in

all weather

conditions.

Power Manning required

Yes Vessel can be

left

unattended for

two to three

days.

Poor in

Northerlies

No Vessel cannot

be left

unmanned

Fuel

Yes by tanker

LOA Beam Notes

20/22m 8m 24 hr. security, Workshop/store on

site, Aegis has dedicated

refuelling line No 10m 3m This port is

visited during patrols to the Fisheries

Flag and could be used as a Port

of refuge only and then with

some difficulty. Vessel has to

take the ground Caenarfon 2 hrs. either

side of HW

Menai

Bridge St

Georges Pier.

Amlwch

Access any state of tide

Good in all

weather

conditions

Shelter

good,

exception in W winds

Access any state of tide

Shelter

good,

exception in NE winds

Yes Vessel can be

left unmanned

for 2/3 days

No Vessel cannot

be left

unmanned

No Vessel cannot

be left

unmanned

Yes Road

tanker

Yes

20m 8m Restricted to

calm weather to

transit the bar

20m 9m This is the

dedicated berth

for the Research

Vessel Prince

Madog. Yes 20m 7m This port is

visited during

patrols to the Fisheries

Flag and could be used as a Port

of refuge only.

Holyhead Marina and

Commercial

Port.

Access any state of

tide.

Shelter

good,

exception E winds

No Vessel cannot

be left

unattended

except for

short periods.

Yes Road

tanker

22m 10m The Commercial

Port currently has no available

berthing for a small craft i.e.

approximately 20m.

Winds from the E

Aegis is too


heavy for the pontoons

Pwllheli

Marina.

Access at

present over high water only due to

excessive

silting of the approach channel.

Barmouth mooring

Shelter

good in all weather

conditions

Yes Vessel can be

left

unattended for

two to three

days.

Yes 20m 9m

no no

limit

Aberystwyth Marina

Access two

hours either

side of high water.

Fishguard.

Milford

Haven

Access any state of

tide.

Access any state of

tide.

Shelter

good in all weather

conditions

Shelter

poor.

Shelter

good.

Yes Vessel can be

left

unattended for

two to three

days

No Vessel cannot

be left

unattended.

Yes Vessel can be

left

unattended for

two to three

days

Yes

Only used to fly the flag with Aegis RIB (Aegis at anchor)

20m 9m draft limit?

Yes

Yes

24m 9m


Swansea Low water

lock

restrictions

on spring tides. Some

winter/night access

restriction.

Marina and

main dock

to consider

separately.

Shelter

good in all weather

conditions

Marina

-No

Comm.

dock-

Yes

Marina; Cannot be left

unmanned as

not usually any shore power, unless there is

a berth in the

Marina itself.

Commercial

Dock; Vessel can be left

unattended for

two to three

days.

yes 25m

fine

8m Lock width limit.

Tawe Lock HW +-

3-4 hrs., 07:00- 22:00BST, 07:00- 19:00 winter and

22:00 at

weekends.

Commercial

dock; HW+- 2- 3hrs

Barry HW+- 2-4

hrs. Good, large commercial

dock.

Yes As long as shore power is acquired then vessel could be

left un manned

Fuel

tanker

required, good vehicular

access

>100m 19.8m This port is never visited. If it were, it would only be to the Fisheries Flag and could be used as a Port of refuge only. Cardiff and Swansea easier alternatives

Cardiff Barrage & Commercial HW +- 2-3 hrs. as long as there is sufficient tide, 24hrs access available

Port Talbot Access any state of tide

Shelter good in all weather conditions

Yes Vessel can be left unattended for two to three days.

Fuel tanker required

40m 10.5m

Shelter good in all weather conditions

Offshore Patrols - Ports of Refuge.


No Vessel cannot be left unmanned

100m 8.5 As an if Swansea not available. Not ideal.

Liverpool Douglas. Heysham Dublin

There are particular constraints on the ports in Mid and North Wales, most are small and have limited access.


Section 28) Appendix F: Scientific requirements

There is a statutory requirement to carry out a great deal of scientific work. However, because it is not the primary role of enforcement, scientific work has been considered as an Ancillary task.

These Ancillary tasks can be performed by:

WGF assets

outsourced assets

combination of WGF and outsourcing

A separate meeting has been held with the WGF senior scientific officer to discuss what the scientific

requirements are.

Task summary

From that meeting, a summary of the principal scientific tasks are:

Task Notes

Multibeam .

Uses a range of echo sound beams of varying frequencies to give a greater swath of coverage and greater resolution in order to build up a picture of what the seabed looks like.

It can be used to determine specific

features e.g. scallop beds as well as discriminating against ground type. Provides a multi-frequency mosaic image of the seabed. It is multi-frequency rather than side scan sonar which has high or low frequency. Multibeam is better resolution than side scan sonar.

Status

Scientists don

currently use multibeam at

present but they want to do

Notes regarding provision of service WGF assets: A 25 m FPV or 18 m CAT

could provide this service. Mounting of hardware is fairly easy at build stage, hardware

cost is significant. Could be planned in for later. or Service could be outsourced

WGF do not have

equipment.

Olex .

Olex is a standard system with a single beam gives the depth and the strength of the beam the hardness of the bed

Scientists regarded as a crude measure

which might well be used as a first

survey.

Side scan sonar Side scan requires a towed fish, it is towed from a davit and so it needs a winch to lift and recover it. It similar to multibeam but

the resolution is not so good. Simply as dual frequency, low or high.


Side scan work to date has been to look at known

scallop grounds for unusual features.

All considered assets could have this.

All considered assets above 12m can have a davit and winch at

relatively low cost to

WGF got side scan in 2012, they had training in 2013 and they used it in 2013.

Camerawork In the past WGS have used a sled with a variety of success and are open to suggestions about methods and equipment. Past experience in Cardigan Bay required calm water but that was simply because of the sediments, requirement is for good visibility so operating limits could differ in different areas. This has been part of the Bangor University work to date.

Any equipment needs lights and must be capable of producing both stills and video.

provide facility for this service.

WGF has SS equipment.

All considered assets can

have an A frame and

winch at relatively low cost to provide facility for this service.

WGF do have

equipment, as yet un- trialled, cameras and WGF do have a sled.

No reason for this

service not to be

provided by WGF, except for vessel availability.

Sampling Sampling requires a static boat, a sampling grab and a winch. WGS has 2 off Van Veen grabs which broadly pull up a bucket size of specimen. The specimen is looked at generally, but that can be analysed more specifically to look at embedded creatures.

Dredging There are two types of dredging which could be done

Scallop or tooth dredge; The purpose is to dredge to look at the size, density and by-catch. Density use looked at for stock assessment. By- catch (which might be Starfish, sea potatoes), is especially looked at to ensure there are no protected species in that area. If there are protected species then it is not possible to open that fishery. Oyster dredge An Oyster dredge is dredge which has a bar at the front and can also be referred to as a

slice dredge and it is towed without breaking the seabed. The purpose of the dredge would be the same but to look at Oyster or mussel stock.

Scientific trawl Has been used through the Swansea University catamaran. Tows a small otter trawl (two otter boards) rather than a beam trawl

The principal foreseen scientific purpose is for identifying nursery areas. The trawl would have a small mesh to catch the

smaller fish which normally go through the mesh.

The trawl can also be used to measure

stock, tag, return to sea.

All considered assets

above 12m can have a

davit/A frame and winch at relatively low cost to provide facility for this service.

WGF have equipment. All considered assets

above approximate 15 m can have an A Frame and


WGF do not have

equipment, but the capital cost is very low

No reason for this

service not to be


All considered assets

above approximate 15 m can have an A Frame and


WGF do not have

equipment, but the capital cost is very low.

No reason for this

service not to be



Pot-hauling Scientific work using a pot hauler is largely project specific. It might for example be used to trial escape hatches and look at retention rates.

A recent project has done just this, typically a string of 20 ports is laid with a soak time and then lifted and analysed.

Laboratory facilities

At the lowest level these activities can be

carried out on a bench on the aft deck with

some very simple stowage for basic equipment and diluted formaldehyde and sample bottles to take samples back. At a higher level it would be beneficial if it was a covered space, if there was a bench with wash down facilities and some storage.

Time summary

From that meeting, a summary of the scientific requirements for vessel time is listed below;

Appendix F Table 2

Task

Scallops Cardigan Bay

Scallops N Wales

Alternative Survey Work

Opening a new fishery

Cockles except Dee

All assets considered will

need to have pot hauling facilities for

enforcement duties.

No reason for this

service not to be

provided by WGF, except for vessel availability. Assets 15 m and below

would have to have

external facilities, assets above 15 m most

probably could have internal facilities.

Boat Days per year (developed with LL)

10

5

10

5

40

Status

Ongoing annual requirement



Additional work- may not be annual

May not need boat, but some boat interaction could improve operation efficiency, providing it was the right type of boat

Possible inter tidal work site days 20 south and 15- 20 north

MPA survey Seed mussel

Total boat days

10

5

45

The above assessment of 45 days for the Ancillary tasks has been carried forward in the assumptions made in the body of this report.

May not need boat, but some boat interaction could improve operation efficiency, providing it was the right type of boat

Additional work

Additional work- side scan, also seabed discrimination mapping and camera/grab truthing.


Section 29) Appendix G: RIB Boarding

Conclusion:

In general it is considered that vessels can be boarded by RIB in the lower end of moderate sea conditions, where significant wave height is defined as 1.25-2.5m and where wind is BF 5, designated fresh breeze and defined as between 17-21 knots.

Generally experience indicates that boarding larger vessels is easier than smaller ones.

Details;

Beaufort and sea state codes numbers do not align exactly. This report uses Beaufort because that is more commonly found in weather forecasting and log reports. See Appendix Q for the details of Beaufort and sea state codes.

The aspects which need to be considered when boarding vessels by RIB are: RIB launch, vessel boarding limits and RIB recovery.

Whilst the operation of the RIB on Cranogwen is severely limited by vessel roll and wind force, RIB launching from Aegis and many other ramp launched configurations is much easier. In general ramp launching is considered a far better way to launch and recover.

In fact launching is possible in quite severe conditions and considerations to launch are generally only constrained by restrictions on the possibility of boarding.

Recovery by ramp is possible in very severe conditions, often by combination of vessel speed and positioning. RIB recovery is therefore never considered to be a constraint.

RIB boarding practical experiences

Four different operators were asked the following question:

Would you have a view on the BF wind force at which you can operationally launch and recover the RIB from the parent vessel?

Would you also have a view about the operational limits at which you would board a large vessel (say over 20m) and a small vessel- (say 10-12m) from the RIB?


(Jersey Marine Resources- 15m NLB) stated: Difficult to give a definite answer as we suffer wind/tide effects that can make a force 2 seem worse than a force 5.

As a general rule of thumb, we can launch in pretty much any conditions and recover in reasonably bad weather, provided the crew all remain on the RIB. I would say in open sea, without wind/tide effect, force 5 is the top end of acceptable.

Recovery winch speed is important, our refit fitted winch is slower and that can cause problems. We have also found that once the RIB is hooked on, we need to be doing at least 6 knots to put drag on the RIB when recovering, otherwise it seems to "float" in the vortex behind the stern.

For boarding, I would say again Force 5 in open sea, not much difference between a large vessel and a small vessel, but we find it easier to board larger vessels with ladders rather than smaller trawlers where we have to climb over the side

(DARDNI) stated verbally: Launch and recovery is possible in most conditions, if necessary by positioning the parent vessel. Boarding 1.5m wave height maximum

WGF) stated: xperience at sea shows that the larger the vessel the greater the sea state that can be

endured for boarding safely. The larger vessels provide a lee to the weather as well as being more stable in the water, even more so when engaged in fishing operations.

The smaller vessels are livelier in the water and pose more of a problem to the boarding officer.

Recently we were unable to board a 10m Scallop vessel in moderate seas, 1-1.5m short period choppy sea, wind SSE force 4, even though the vessel was fishing. The RIB then transited 1.5nm further offshore, to a larger >20m vessel engaged in fishing and the boarding officer boarded and

rried out an inspection safely.

WGF added:

I would say the operational limit for both situations would be sea-state Larger vessels, whilst more stable move more independently of the waves (and RIB). Smaller vessels whilst less stable tend to move with the RIB helping the boarding operation.

Whilst it may be feasible to extend the sea-state operation to one would wish to keep a safety margin in hand and not set out in such conditions, bearing in mind that conditions may orsen whilst a prolonged boarding takes place.

(WGF) stated: Launch and recovery of Aegis boarding vessel window is max F5 (sea state 1.5 metres). For RIB boarding of any vessel above 10m would be sea state 1.5m.We have launched/ recovered/ boarded in higher sea conditions but don't make a habit of it for obvious reasons.


Section 30) Appendix H: UK FPS and Scottish FPS information

The following notes are added to provide some background on the way the English and Scottish FPS operate.


Section 31) Appendix J: Vessel activity list

The following list was supplied by to summarise activity areas and distance to ports. Additional notes have been adde responses fro

No. Heading

1

Welsh Zone

South West

Limit

Notes:- To be read in conjunction with Chart LOS 1121A Nearest Welsh Port

Little activity at present

Celtic Deep Summer activity, French & Irish trawlers

2

comments; "the Celtic Deeps are an all round fishery and not just a summer one. In fact, weather allowing, the last quarter of 201 saw high levels of activity in these areas. Predominately Southern Irish with a mix of French, Belgian and Brits thrown in for good measure."

Welsh Zone

South 1st Feb-31 March closed to demersal trawling. Activity 1st May onwards.

3

comments "Points 3 and 16 there is an EU Cod

Protection measure which means that 2 ICES rectangles

(which are partly in the Welsh Zone) are closed to

bottom trawling during February and March each year.

This is designed to protect the spawn cod to the North of

Trevose. We will see high levels of Belgian activity in the

Southern Welsh Zone during January and then from April

onwards. The levels of activity are influenced by quota

levels. From 1st April the area is reopened and there will

be high levels of activity in the Trevose area (English

Waters). After about 2 weeks this activity will spread out

and we will see more Belgian and French in the Southern

Welsh Zone/Northern Celtic Deeps. This will be mirrored

by levels of Irish and UK activity."

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Burry Inlet

Welsh Zone, St Gowans

Bristol

Channel

Cardiff

Netting

Swansea Bay & Inner Bristol

Channel

Gower

Brixham Beam Trawlers, Summer & Autumn activity. Milford Haven

6-12 nm zone, Belgium (and others) Beam trawlers using

otter trawls, Whelks

Aberthaw Bass Nursery Area, all year

No netting areas, 1st April 31st October

Demersal trawlers, commercial & leisure anglers, mixed

fishery all year. No netting areas 1st April-31st October, Porthcawl area.

Commercial & leisure anglers, summer, commercial shell

fish potting.

Bass Nursery Area 1st May-31st October, drift netting

restrictions all year. Summer activity.

Swansea

Cardiff

Cardiff

Swansea

Swansea

Swansea

Burry Port

18

22

12

5

14

13

22

5

Milford

Haven

30

Milford

Haven

Milford

Haven

Port

(nm)

78

53


11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

North Celtic

Deep

Milford Haven

St Davids

St Davids -

Fishguard

Cardigan Bay /

St Georges Channel

Cod Recovery Zone

Hake

Recovery Zone

Carmarthen

Bay

Tenby Milford Haven

Milford Haven

(offshore)

Milford Haven

(inshore)

Smalls

Drift Netting restrictions 1st May-31st October. Small

trawlers, commercial and leisure anglers. Summer

Activity.

Commercial & Leisure potting and angling. Visiting

Brixham beam trawlers. Summer activity.

Commercial potting, all year

Bass nursery areas, Summer Activity

Commercial potting, all year.

1st Feb-31 March closed to demersal trawling. Activity

1st May onwards.- see point 3 above

Commercial & Leisure potting, some netting. Activity All

year. Scallops 1st November 30th April.

Cardigan Bay Scallop fishery 1st November-30th April. Commercial

and leisure potting all year. High activity in Summer.

Irish Scallop vessels in Welsh Zone, >12nm

North of 52 degrees, various conservation measures in

place to be enforced

All of Wales, various conservation measures in place to be enforced

Swansea

Tenby

Milford

Haven

Milford

Haven

Milford

Haven

Milford

Haven

Milford

Haven

Commercial & Leisure potting, some netting. All year. Milford Haven

Fishguard

Fishguard

Fishguard

Fishguard

30

12

15

23

5

33

52

18

15

35

35

>30


Section 32) Appendix L: Current asset reports

During the course of this work Amgram made visits to the two primary assets of the Welsh Government Sea Fisheries to Cranogwen (20-11-13) and to Aegis (20/01/14 and 21-02-14).

Aegis

The Aegis is a Halmatic 52 patrol boat built in March 1996. The boat number is MR 3970 and the Lloyds Hull Number is SOU 511 003 95.

Builder

Year of Build

Material

Length Overall Beam

Draught Displacement Engines Speed Accommodation

Crew/Max Operational Sea State


Halmatic

1996

GRP

16.0m

5.3m

1.6m

30tons

2 off 700 Caterpillars 22 knots max. 15 knots cruise

3 single berth cabins 3, max. 8 B5

Special Equipment Electronics

Stern frame SWL 1000kg 5M RIB Comprehensive

Last Refit 2008

The vessel is located at Conwy marina in Wales and is constrained in her operations by the tidal bar at the entrance to the marina.

Vessel Vessel found to be in very good condition for her age and has been well maintained. The engine hours were in the region of 2500 which is very low given her years. There has evidently been a high level of ongoing maintenance. The mechanical issues were mainly due to corroded copper raw water pipework that had not been replaced during the previous year refit. In the past the crew managed and were heavily involved in the maintenance works but during the last refit this was not the case due to government policy and it was felt that the works were not carried out efficiently or to an acceptable standard. Therefore, the crew felt, had they managed the refit, there would have been far fewer days lost.

The boat has 30 hour endurance and a cruise speed of 15 knots. The main issues are that the boat rolls severely and is very uncomfortable. Also the crew seats need replacing. The generator was in the process of being replaced with a higher capacity and quieter unit.

The crew were pleased with the operation of the rib launch and recovery system. It is operable in up to 1.5m seas.

The vessel is equipped with a small frame at the stern which could be used for day grab sampling but this would restrict her ability to carry out patrol duties as the RIB could not be on board. (This is not an issue because it is accepted that all Ancillary tasks have to be programmed in independently of Enforcement tasks) There is a possibility to fit a pot hauler on the starboard side.

Ports: Conwy is the preferred location but is restricted by the tide and marina bar. Holyhead is stated by the crew to be not suitable in high winds (the crew showed videos in a force 8 with waves breaking over the pontoons.)

Operation: Crew feel that the Aegis is capable of fulfilling the role particularly if the rolling motion could be reduced and the vessel made more comfortable at sea.

stated that there was an MSN notice that reduces the operational envelope for this type of orce 6 to Force 4.

Crew: Captain First Officer Engineer

Qualified Requires Yachtmaster Practical to skipper the boat Requires Yachtmaster Theory and Practical to skipper boat


Cranogwen

The

Cranogwen is a displacement steel vessel. She has a Merlin RIB which was fitted in 2008.

Builder

Year of Build

Material

Length Overall Beam

Draught Displacement Engines Speed Accommodation

Crew/Max Operational Sea State Special Equipment Electronics

Last Refit

Abels

1987

Steel hull, aluminium superstructure 19.44m

5.4m

1.8m

50 tonnes

2 off 225 Caterpillars 10 knots

4 persons, for up to 5 days, mess, cabins, wc, shower, wheelhouse 4/max persons 8 B5

500kg davit, RIB, pot hauler, Comprehensive inc olex 2005

Cranogwen had a significant refit in 2005 when the superstructure was rebuilt (very effectively) in aluminium. However she is severely limited in her RIB operations by roll and wind force as the RIB has to be deployed over the side by davit.

She would appear to be in good condition given her age but again is very limited in her ability to fulfil her role as a sea fisheries protection vessel by her seakeeping and speed.


Vessel

Vessel found to be in very good condition for her age and has been well maintained. However there has been some evidence of shell plate corrosion.

Ports:

Cranogwen is based in Milford Haven marina.

Operation: Crew have made the best of the vessel, but do not feel that this is the vessel for the future.

Crew:

Captain Qualified


Section 33) Appendix M: Project cost development

Vessel costs

From industry data and sources, typical vessel costs at the date of writing are shown below.

Table

5

FPV-25m

knots

25

Raw boat price data- detail

Speed Material Length Displ't Raw Boat price data

Al

m Tonnes

25

Notes

50 2,475,000 Supplier 3 provided

a late 2013 3mill

euro budget cost based on DARD

CAT-19m 25 Al 19 30 1,900,000 Supplier 2 indicate 2014- 1.9 ex

design for 19m

with props and

basic fit

FPV-18m

FPV-15m

25 Al/GRP 18

Al 25 15

25 1,700,000 Amgram estimate

18 1,120,000 Supplier 2 indicate

aggregate of 980k

and 1050k 2012-

plus 2 years inflation

CRIB-12m 25 GRP/Al 12 12 550,000 Supplier 4 price 500k in 2014.

Amgram consider this low so have

added some cost

Project costs

Project costs vary substantially from actual vessel costs, due to the other elements required to bring a

craft into service for an authority.

Amgram has a project cost estimating sheet, which applies factors to allow for often forgotten

elements in the pre-build, build and post build periods. The sheet uses reference data from the DARD

project for Northern Ireland to generate typical project costs for the varying options.

Exchange rate

$

0.83 3,000,000

Price


Table 6 detailed- Detail of conversion from Boat Price to Project Costs Description notes

1) Pre build process a. Specification development and process to tender and tender award (external)

b. Specification development and process to tender and tender award (internal) Included in the above

were reasonable amount

of travel, shortlist yard visits and final yard negotiation visits. section 1 subtotal inc

5% estimating margin, allowance for errors and

omissions

2) Build process c. Vessel design cost % of

vessel

cost

d. Vessel cost, complete and delivered

e. Specialist equipment- RIB & system

e. Specialist equipment- Electronics

e. Specialist equipment- Hydraulics f. Allowance for in build

variation costs of items

d-e

PC sum

PC sum

PC sum

% taken

from

DARD

g. Financial bond costs % taken from

DARD

h. Oversight and project management (external) inc travel

% split of total 10%

PM cost

taken

from

DARD

i. Oversight and project management (internal)

internal

man days at above

rate

% split of total 10%

PM cost

taken

from

DARD

internal

man days at above

rate

12

74,250

FPV-25m CAT-19m

57,000

FPV-18m

51,000

FPV-15m

33,600

CRIB-

12m

16,500

9,000 10 7,500 10 7,500 10 6,000 8 4,500

87,413 67,725 61,425 41,580 22,050

8% 198,000

2,475,000

0

0

0

10% 247,500

1% 24,750

62% 153,450

152,000

1,900,000

140,000

50,000

30,000

212,000

21,200

117,800

136,000

1,700,000

40,000

50,000

30,000

182,000

18,200

105,400

89,600

1,120,000

40,000

50,000

30,000

124,000

12,400

69,440

44,000

550,00 0

0

40,000

20,000

61,000

6,100

34,100

30 22,500 25 18,750 25 18,750 20 18,750 20 15,000


section 2 subtotal inc


omissions

3,277,260 2,773,838 2,394,368 1,631,900 808,71 0

3) Post Build process j. delivery time costs (internal)

k. Guarantee period oversight and project management costs (external) l. Guarentee period down

time/Departmental time and input section 3 subtotal inc


omissions

Total project cost estimate as at issue

date

Item

internal man day cost external man day cost aggregate 850/650

Explanati on

750

750

internal

man days at above

rate

12 9,000 10 7,500 10 7,500 7 7,500 7 3,750

19,800 19,800 19,800 19,800 19,800

10,500 9,000 9,000 9,000 5,250

41,265 38,115 38,115 38,115 30,240

3,405,938 2,879,678 2,493,908 1,711,595 861,00 0

Base Running costs

The following table summarises the approximate base running costs- excluding all manpower- for the solutions.

A costing is shown for 1.5 vessels; this represents the cost situation during the initial phase, when Aegis is retained. It can be seen that this 1.5 vessel solution is the lowest running cost, although it must be remembered that this change after about 5 years as Aegis is replaced. However it should never exceed the running cost of the 2 vessel solution.

Although the capital cost of the 3 vessel solution is lower than the 2 vessel solution, the running cost is higher- mainly due to the lower utilisation per vessel.


Appendix M

Base running costs

Solution Loc'n Project costs

Engine power

(total)

Fuel used

at 40%

power

using 215g/kwhr

Fuel

burnt

per day (based on 12 hr

day)

kw l/hr 1.5 BSOL FPV-25m SOUTH

& 50% NORTH

AEGIS 1.5 BSOL EX ANCILL ANCILLARY TASKS 1.5BSOL INC ANCILL

3,405,938 1800

300,000 1000 3,705,938

100,000

3,805,938

2B SOL FPV-25m SOUTH 3,405,938 1800 CAT-19m NORTH 2,879,678 1400

6,285,615 2BSOL EX ANCILL ANCILLARY TASKS 2BSOL INC ANCILL

100,000

6,385,615

2.5B SOL

FPV-25m SOUTH 3,405,938 1800 CAT-19m NORTH 2,879,678 1400

861,000 CRIB-12m MID 2.5BSOL EX ANCILL ANCILLARY TASKS 2.5BSOL INC ANCILL

7,146,615

100,000

7,246,615

3B SOL FPV-25m SOUTH 3,405,938 1800 FPV-15m NORTH 1,711,595

861,000 CRIB-12m MID 3BSOL EX ANCILL ANCILLARY TASKS 3BSOL INC ANCILL

5,978,532

100,000

6,078,532

808 705

257 115 101

3086 1385 1209

2160 970 846 1325

705

184 200 101

2211 2400 1209

1548 1680 846 1358

184 143

2211 1720

1548 1204 1376

184

102

Fuel cost per day (at

0.70p per litre)

l/day /day days

2211

1229

1548

860 1204

/annum /annum

141 218,268 100,000 355,393

50

45

236

43,000 191 261,268

27,090

64,000 132,500 487,893

27,090

514,983

103 159,444 100,000 296,569 88 105,952 76,000 191 265,396

45 30,960

236 296,356

80 65 45

45

30,960

537,981

123,840 100,000 260,965 109,200 76,000 38,070 48,000

190 271,110

30,555

235 301,665

80 61 50

45

30,555

591,290

172,800 100,000 309,925 59,146 42,300

60,000 48,000

191 274,246

29,817

236 304,063

29,817

574,238

Sea time

Total fuel cost

per annum

Maint- enance cost

Total running cost per annum

210,452 507,021

213,700 86,070 560,735

135,946 98,550 544,421


Section 34) Appendix N: Scientific vessel costs

There are a number of other sources to provide craft that could carry out the scientific (ancillary) tasks.

The notes below record the initial contacts with some typical providers:

Prince Madog

30 m vessel owned by a joint-venture company between Bangor University and P&O Maritime services. P&O Maritime (POMS) operate the vessel on behalf of the joint-venture company.

Availability

Typical day rates

There are a number of additional costs to add to this:

Fuel

Accommodation

Side Scan Sonar

ROC camera

Camera sled

Beam trawl 4m

Otter trawl

Multibeam

Harbour dues


So assuming that the lowest rate applies: a four-man scientific crew operating on a 12 hour day, 4 hours at transit, 4 hours at survey speed and 4 hours at standby (for sampling or analysis) vessel cost would be:

Basic hire rate

Accommodation

Equipment use Fuel (approx. 1500 L)

Subtotal

Total cost including 10% margin

Briggs/EA (UK)

18 m catamaran vessels owned and operated by Briggs Marine under contract to the environment agency (UK). Two of the vessels operate around the coast of Wales operating for EA (Wales)/NRW for the first 16 days of each month. There is a small amount of spare capacity within the 16 day periods but EA/Briggs are looking to fill the other availability with third-party hire

During the contracted 16 day periods the service provide by Briggs is entirely vessel focussed (vessels, crew and maintenance) and does not include any of the sampling /survey staff or data analysis.

The EA provides the vessel based survey staff and equipment for the current NRW survey programme and a combination of EA and NRW staff currently interpret the data. However data interpretation will be entirely NRW from December 2015 as part of current transitional arrangements and the need to build up marine data interpretation expertise and capacity within NRW. NRW do send some of their staff out from time to time to assist with some of the more labour intensive surveys and to check on quality.

Typical work carried for EA (Wales)/NRW is: Water framework directive surveys for most of the work but there is also Habitat directive work. Processes include water quality benthic sampling trawling. The Severn Guardian and the Mersey Guardian are starting to do ground discrimination surveys including use of hammon grabs, video survey.

The EA are also starting bathymetric studies, multibeam and acoustic on the East Coast for flood defence work.

The high and substantial A-frame allows the EA to deploy wave buoys they have recently added a dive platform on the back of the 18 m.

vessel cost per day


Other organisations, CEFAS, wind farm operators, oil companies also hire the vessel to carry out a variety of survey processes.

Briggs also run and maintain other small vessels for NRW/CCW that is the Prowler, Salar-Vie, Eog-y- Mor. The vessels are physically operated by NRW/CCW staff.

The EA commented that they are also working in various areas in the UK, looking to share small vessels between the EA and the IFCA organisations. By sharing small vessels they mean rationalising the significant number of 4 to 6 m ribs that are currently operated, stored and maintained.

Typical day rates The EA has been asked to look at the order of costs that would be applicable if the WGF took up an annual utilisation of around 45 days per year. It was stressed that this was an ongoing requirement, not a single operation and that EA will quote accordingly.

The operation of the NRW part of the Briggs contract is currently undergoing some revision of costing as costs are currently allocated on a percentage basis.

EA replied: Below are the costs Briggs are currently charging for the England Marine Conservation Zone work in collaboration with Cefas. These are at cost with no management overhead or on costs. These (management overheads) will depend on the detail of the work and how it is integrated into the existing NRW programme.

Charge type Vessel and Crew

Vessel and Crew for equipment setup/off laod and data processing day Vessel and Crew Down weather outside EA's 16 days Mobilisation per survey EA staff: MMO1 survey and report writing per day EA staff: MMO2 survey and report writing per day Briggs Extra Crew Fuel ave per day assuming local port passage Sample Courier per one way trip SeaSpyder per day SeaSpyder Down stand by day SeaBug per day SeaBug per day stand by day Camera Courier

Formaldehyde 36% aqueous solution Benthic pots 1.0 litre (snap on lid) Benthic pots 1.0 litre (screw on lid) Benthic pots 2.5 litre Benthic pots 5.0 litre Otter trawl, beam trawl per day Mini Hamon grab, Day grab per day

Cost

1,100.00

800.00

800.00

1,548.00 232.00

207.00

195.00

250.00

400.00

300.00

180.00

403.00

241.80

600.00

4.48

0.21

0.87

2.50

1.20

50

20


WGF indicated the nature of the work is sea bed survey and if this could be integrated with the existing NRW WFD and Habitats Directive programmes EA believe there would be significant savings. EA also have access to an EA owned full multi-beam system and are actively developing a service in England in this area.

At the rates above the vessel cost with a four-man scientific crew operating on a 12 hour day, 4 hours at transit, 4 hours at survey speed and 4 hours at standby (for sampling or analysis) would be:

Basic hire rate

Accommodation

Equipment use Fuel

Subtotal

1100

128 200

250

1678

Total cost including 10% margin and management/overhead referred to above at say 10% 2013 vessel cost per day

45 days of work would cost: 90,612 per year

Swansea university vessel RV Noctiluca

RV Noctiluca is a 12.5 m catamaran, built by Mobimar in Finland and about 15 years old. Fitted with 2 x Volvo Penta 200 bhp engines

Operated by the marine department Swansea University she is basically a day boat with some accommodation. There are 4 berths for limited overnight stays.

Set up with a hydraulic frame and suitable for multi-use, she can perform all the usual functions, grab sampling, beam trawling, Multibeam etc.

She operates up to BF 4, and the lower end of BF 5. Commented that she is a little fine in the bow for heavy weather but heavy weather seldom limits matters because most work needs to be done in weather BF 4 or below.

Typical work is: Dedicated teaching support work (mainly in Oct-November in blocks) and at other times though the year.

Hired out through Seacam to provide marine related support for welsh companies and that earns revenue through grant aid. This work has included operations like laying equipment for the Swansea bay tidal lagoons.

Hired out externally to third party companies on a commercial basis. Typically that could be to Titan, for sonar towing or grab sampling, to EMU to put down Doppler flow meters on the seabed, or to Hinkley power station to carry out seabed and habitat surveys.


Availability The vessel operates perhaps 80-100 day per year, which is probably 50% of her potential and therefore the university is keen to increase that utilisation

Note:

Swansea University view Noctiluca as coming to the end of her life and are looking to procure a new vessel, which they imagine would be slightly larger, probably 16-18m and around the configuration of the EA/Briggs vessel. As well as the life considerations they wish to increase the capacity and be capable of carrying larger teaching classes.

Typical day rates. The vessel is hired on an hourly basis to allow variable or part days to be carried out. Hourly rate is 150 or 1800 for a 12 hour day.

The day rate includes a skipper, crew, and fuel and most equipment.

Specialist equipment is hired in (multibeam for example is approx. 3000 per week) but most other facilities are in the price.

Demurrage is charged depending on location. In Swansea area there is generally no charge, if based away then the charges are generally accommodation and skipper and crew costs.

Basic hire rate 1800

Accommodation

Equipment use Fuel

Subtotal

128 assumed similar cost to Prince Madog included

included

1928

Total cost including 10% margin 2120 vessel cost per day

45 days of work would cost: 95,436 per year


Section 35) Appendix P: WGF and NRW floating stock summary

Boat name Builder year of material build- or estimate

length (m)

beam (m)

draught (m)

Weight (tonnes)

Engines/s ; qty x power/make

speed (knots)

propulsion type

crew/max capacity

Afloat/ Trailer

operational sea state- ability to sail

accommodation- basic notes

special equipment- basic notes

electronics- basic notes

refit- last known or other significant history

Cranogwen Abels 1987 steel/ aluminium s/structure

19.4 5.4 1.8 64 2 x 225 CATERPILLER

10 Props 4/max 12 Afloat BF 5 accom. for 4 persons, for up to 5 days, mess, cabins, wc, shower, wheelhouse

Aegis Halmatic

RIB Merlin MST

1996 GRP

2008 GRP

16.0 5.3 1.6

5.4 2.8 0.8

30 2 x 700 CATERPILLAR

1.25 1 x 160hp VOLVO

RIB SeaRider II Avon 1999 GRP 6.0 2.8 0.8 1.25 2 x 90hp HONDA

RIB Humber 2012 GRP 5.0 2.0 0.5 0.45 1 x 50hp YAMAHA

22 Props

38 Outdrive; duoprop

3/max 8 Afloat

2/max 4 Onboard/Tr ailer

35 Outboard 2/max4 Onboard/Tr ailer

28 Outboard 2 max 4 Trailer

BF 5

BF 4

Accom for 3,3 cabins

none

500kg davit, RIB, pot hauler,

Comprehensive inc olex

significant refit 2005

Stern Aframe SWL 1000kg 5M RIB

Comprehensive inc Roxanne

furuno gps colour plotter sounder, icom dsc vhf radio

BF 4 none furuno gps colour plotter sounder, icom dsc vhf radio

none plotter/vhf

2008



length (m)

beam (m)

draught (m)

Weight (tonnes)


speed (knots)

propulsion type

crew/max capacity

Afloat/ Trailer






06-12-13. gave the following info; for the vessel resources primarily used for the EA legacy monitoring

Mersey Guardian- (Briggs) Severn Guardian (Briggs)

Salar-Vie

Eog-Y-Mor

owler

Mustang Marine

Mustang Marine

Cheetah Marine Botnia Marin AB (Targa 25)

Orkney Boats (WA810026)

2012 Welded Aluminium

2013 Welded Aluminium

GRP

2009 GRP

GRP

-12-13 gave the following info; for the ex CCW vessel details

Skalmey Cygnus 1992 GRP 8.5 3.4 0.9 6 1 x 385 CATERPILLER 3126B

10-18kn Jet/inboard diesel

2/max 12 Afloat BF 5 Basic wheelhouse protection and basic facilties

A frame, hydraulic winch SWL 150kg, RIB on deck

Morlo

Pedryn

Humber

Delta

2006 GRP

2003 GRP hull and hypolon tubes

5.8 2.2 1.0

11.7 3.3 0.8

0.9 2 x 50 EVINRUDE 2 stroke

5.5 2 x 355HP YANMAR

24 Outboard 6

32 Jet/inboard diesel

Trailer

2/max 12 Afloat

BF 5

Coded for Cat C. Normal ops up to force 5. Built for force 8.

none

Cabin for skipper and up to approx 6

none

Hydraulic A frame and cable drum. Primarily equipped for diving, drop video and side scan

GPS, Radar, plotter echo sounder DSC radio

a long history of engine refits!

gps/ sounder/dsc radio

Full nav gear inc radar / AIS etc

new engines 2013 Jets

currently require overhaul. Normal servicing up to date.

18.3 6.3 1.2

18.3 6.3 1.15 - Basline 2.2 - Skegs

8.0

8.4 2.9 1.1

5.8 2.3 0.6

34 2 x Volvo D9 Inboard V-Drive

34 2 x Volvo D9 Inboard V-Drive

2 x 90 HONDA BF90

3.5 Volvo D4-300 Inboard

1 x 60 EFI MARINER

18/30 6

Outboard 3

18

18

12

12

Afloat

Afloat

3x Twin Cabins and mess

3x Twin Cabins and mess

Trailer

Trailer

Trailer

Basic wheelhouse

Wheelhouse and basic accom, seats for 4-5 Cuddy and seats for 2



length (m)

beam (m)

draught (m)

Weight (tonnes)


speed (knots)

propulsion type

crew/max capacity

Afloat/ Trailer






18-12-13 gave the following info; a spreadsheet of other boats owned by NRW that are used in saline and fresh waters

WA800081 WA800082

WA800089 WA800090

WA800091

WA810026 WA810039

WA810040 WA820163 WA820188

WA820192 WA820195 WA820200 WA820201 WA820204

WA820206

WA820207

WA820612 WA820636 WA820655 WA820699 WA820704 WA820725 WA820762

WA820821 WA820831

SEASTRIKE AVON

POWERCAT E.G. SOLUTIONS KEY MILL CONSTRUCTI ON see above CHEETAH MARINE TARGA AVON AVON

AVON AVON AVON AVON AVON

AVON

AVON

SEAGO PIONEER PIONEER PIONEER AVON THANETCRAFT AVON

AQUAPECHE AVON

CATAMARAN

25.1

AVON REDSHANK 11FT RIB REDSTART ROLLAWAY ROLLAWAY 4.7 METRE RIB 4.7

9FT INFLATABLE 3.11 METRE RIB 270R 10 12 12 ERB 380 WORKBOAT REDCREST INFLATABLE 350 ROVER 2.6

3.5 2.6

3.1

2.7

Outboard

?? Outboard Outboard

Outboard Outboard Outboard Outboard Outboard

Outboard

Outboard

Outboard Outboard Outboard Outboard Outboard Outboard Outboard

Outboard Outboard

none none

none none none none none

none

none

none none none none none none none

none none

ALUMINIUM ROVER 260 LITE 525 ROTARY/SCRE W/FISHTR SCREWFISHTR APROTARY

Outboard Outboard

Outboard

none none

none


Section 36) Appendix Q: Beaufort and sea state codes

Beaufort and sea state code numbers do not align exactly. The two codes are listed together.

WGF- report rev 01 issued 14-07-14.docx

Section 37) Appendix R: Information that is sensitive in the event of an FOI application

Supplier 1:

Supplier 2:

Supplier 3;

Supplier 4:


Report for - Home | GOV.WALES

Documents

Transcript of Report for - Home | GOV.WALES